The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the higher 35% duty rate for tuna salad pouches imported by StarKist in a March 30 opinion, siding with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification. The Court of International Trade first sided with CBP, upholding the agency's finding that the tuna salad pouches are "not minced" and "in oil." The Federal Circuit agreed with the trade court and said that the pouches are indeed not minced and in oil, prompting their placement under HTS subheading 1604.14.10.
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 Court of International Trade ruled in a March 25 opinion that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Magid argued for classification in subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government, ruling that heading 6116 and subheading 6116.10.55 describe the gloves in question.
Processes performed on steel bars do not constitute "further working" for the purposes of tariff classification, meaning the steel bars are still classifiable in a tariff subheading subject to Section 232 tariffs, DOJ said in a brief filed March 21 at the Court of International Trade. Arguing in favor of its cross-motion for judgment, DOJ said that imported grinding rods from China are still classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.40.00 as “Other bars and rods of other alloy steel … not further worked than forged." ME Global is seeking reclassification of the rods under the residual subheading 7326.11.00 as "other articles of iron or steel,” which are not subject to Section 232 tariffs (ME Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00179).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion that a customs spat over reimported swimsuits will head to phase two of trial. After sorting through whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement during the first phase, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that this condition was satisfied for classification under a duty-free tariff provision for U.S. goods returned. The court will now see if the remaining conditions are satisfied in order to grant SGS Sports duty-free treatment of the reimported swimwear.
Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.
Imported net wrap should be classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8433 as part of harvesting machinery under subheading 8433.90.50 or agricultural machinery under heading 8436, rather than as textile material under heading 6005, RKW Klerks said in a motion filed March 15 at the Court of International Trade. RKW argued that the imported netwrap is "only used in harvesting machinery to produce round bales of hay, silage and fodder," a function that is "fixed with certainty at the time of importation" (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).
A nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026, DOJ said in a brief filed March 8 at the Court of International Trade. DOJ argued that the probe's function falls within the definition of "chemical analysis" and that the sensor itself includes design features that meet plain language definitions of chemical analysis.
The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion to dismiss a case from Wheatland Tube Co. seeking to compel CBP to respond to requests for information and a tariff classification ruling, Wheatland said in a March 9 reply brief. DOJ had said the trade court should toss the case, in part, since it already responded to the RFI and petition for a tariff classification. Wheatland disagreed, arguing that CBP's limited response failed to meet the requirements of Section 1516 which mandates that CBP "furnish the classification and the rate of duty imposed upon designated imported merchandise" (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: