The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 denied both the government's and importer HyAxiom's motions for judgment in a customs classification case on PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator known as the PureCell Model 400. Judge Timothy Stanceu said a factual determination is needed on whether the PC50's "principal function" is gas generation.
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 on Aug. 28 rejected the motions for judgment from both importer HyAxiom and the government on the proper classification of PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the court must first resolve whether the goods fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8405, which cover gas or water gas generators and is the heading preferred by HyAxiom. The judge said the court must determine whether the PC50's "primary function" is as a gas or water gas generator -- something neither party has sufficiently answered. As a result, both parties' summary judgment motions were denied.
An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
In defense of its own motion for judgment (see 2405020062) and opposing the government’s counterclaim, an importer again argued that the U.S. can’t counterclaim to reclassify an entry to increase the amount of duty owed on it higher than the rate initially assessed by CBP. Such a counterclaim lacks a cause of action, it said (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
A Swiss watchmaker embroiled in a customs dispute with the U.S. since 2018 "failed to provide” evidence that the watches its commercial invoices identified were actually the ones it imported, the government said Aug. 13 in support of its cross-motion for judgment (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: