The Court of International Trade on April 19 sent back the Commerce Department's pick of Brazil as the primary surrogate country, and the use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate value data, in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. After already remanding once for Commerce's failure to cite evidence in making its surrogate choices, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said she "must now remand again for the same failure."
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) is a reference manual that provides duty rates for almost every item that exists. It is a system of classifying and taxing all goods imported into the United States. The HTS is based on the international Harmonized System, which is a global standard for naming and describing trade products, and consists of a hierarchical structure that assigns a specific code and rate to each type of merchandise for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. The HTS was made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. It is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, but the Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week's Court of International Trade decision regarding the classification of the company's notebooks with calendars (see 2404100052), the notice of appeal said. In its decision, the trade court classified the goods under its own preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, 4820.10.20.10, rather than one of the subheadings advanced by Blue Sky or CBP. The judge said the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System, where it was used to set the HTS (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 16 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):
Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).
A Russian pipe exporter contested the International Trade Commission's redetermination upon remand that Russian pipe imports into the U.S. were injuring domestic industry (see 2402120048). It said the ITC didn’t make any changes to its analysis in the redetermination, contrary to an order by the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).
In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).
An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
The Court of International Trade on April 10 rejected the preferred tariff classification of notebooks with calendars from both CBP and importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, slotting the products under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10 as "diaries." Judge Jane Restani explained that the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System.