Harmonized Tariff Schedule

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The DOJ further argued for the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions since the 19 entries that are the subject of litigation have not been liquidated. In a Nov. 12 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, wrongly argue that their protests don't concern the tariff classification of their merchandise. The protests at issue seek use of a tariff exclusion, which is a challenge of the tariff classification, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

CBP erred in its classification of importer Alpi International's stress toys, since the agency's classification decision cut against its practice regarding the same toys for nearly 30 years, Alpi argued in its Nov. 12 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Alpi International, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00064). Since 1993, Alpi imported Squeezies stress toys under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.90, which provides for toys. This changed in November 2019, however, when CBP then changed its classification decision, instead liquidating the stress toys under HTS subheading 3926.40.0090. CBP said that the toys fit under this subheading since they are not shaped like a ball and ornamental plastic statuettes. Alpi argued that the toys are more accurately described under its preferred HTS subheading and that CBP failed to give the toys the disputed classification throughout the years it was being imported. As early as July 2018, CBP examined the toys and came up with the decision that they should be classified under subheading 9503.00.0090, the complaint said. Lastly, CBP violated its past practice by failing to classify the toys under Alpi's preferred classification, the company said.

Mobile home skirting spikes imported by Roy G. Evans Co. are subject to antidumping duties on steel nails from China (A-570-909), the Commerce Department said in a scope ruling issued Nov. 5. Though Roy G. Evans, which does business as EVCO, argued that the spikes are imported under a tariff subheading not listed in the scope of the order, Commerce noted that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers in the scope are not exhaustive, and that the merchandise has the physical characteristics of subject nails.

The Court of International Trade erred when it took "bypass" liquidations into its consideration of treatment previously afforded importer Kent International's children's bicycle seats, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Nov. 3 opinion. Remanding the issue to the trade court, a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit, however, upheld CIT's determination that there was no de facto "established and uniform practice" (EUP) regarding the customs classification of kids' bike seats.

Manufacturer and distributor Irwin Industrial Tool filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade seeking to secure a particular customs classification for its locking pliers in line with prior CIT rulings on the issue. The locking pliers have two handles with two opposing metal jaws with metal teeth connected by a joint or pivot that also includes a spring mechanism (Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. U.S., CIT #15-00107).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded in part and sustained in part the Court of International Trade's opinion in a Nov. 3 decision amid a customs battle over bicycle seats. The Federal Circuit found the trade court erred in approving CBP's use of "bypass entries" to show the established classification treatment of the bicycle seat imports. However, the three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit upheld CIT's finding of no de facto established and uniform practice. The plaintiff, Kent International, had argued that such a practice existed based on CBP's liquidation of its entries, and the entries of third parties, under its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading.

Importer Incase Design filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade in a bid to secure its preferred classification of its car Apple cellphone chargers. CBP liquidated the chargers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8504.40.95, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: Other,” dutiable at 1.5%. Incase argues that the proper HTS home for the car chargers is 8504.40.85, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: For telecommunication apparatus,” free of duty (Incase Design Corp. v. U.S., CIT #16-00235, #17-00046).

International conglomerate Honeywell filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to secure its preferred customs classification of its radial and chordal brake segments imports. After they're imported, the brake segments are manufactured into brake discs for airplanes (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #17-00256).

Importer TCW Trends resumed litigation in its case filed in 2012 at the Court of International Trade over the rate of duty paid on its men's knit tops and pants imports. Filing a complaint on Oct. 29, TCW said that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. Ultimately, CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law, the complaint said (TCW Trends, Inc. v. United States, CIT #12-00166).