The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Arguments from plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand submission at the Court of International Trade lack merit and reveal a "misunderstanding of judicial remands," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 4 brief defending the remand results. The plaintiffs said that USTR cannot take another look at the record to defend its tariff action under Section 301 from public comments and can only "parrot existing statements" on the record. The government said that this view is not compatible with a key Supreme Court precedent, and that under this interpretation, no agency would be able to stand by its decision in fixing a failure to respond to public comments (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).
Excavators are not backhoes or similar construction equipment and counterweights designed specifically for excavators are not subject to Section 301 steel tariffs, Norca argued in a Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Engineered Products v. United States, CIT #21-00305).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 26 order allowed Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing, one of the plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation, to withdraw its motion to transfer interest in the case to Hitachi Astemo Americas. Hitachi Astemo Americas said that it wanted to withdraw the motion so it could amend its complaint and other relevant documents to reflect its merger with Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the companies said in their original motion to transfer interest (see 2210140044) (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
CBP did not violate an importer's due process rights by requiring protests for retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties on imported pressure switches, the government said in an Oct. 25 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124). The brief is in support of DOJ's July motion for dismissal claiming lack of jurisdiction and timeliness.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: