The Court of International Trade designated a tariff classification challenge on circuit card assemblies as a test case for four other lawsuits all brought by the same importer in a Sept. 30 order. Judge M. Miller Baker designated Triumph Engine Control System's case #19-00094 as the test case for the other cases -- CIT #19-00108, 19-00109, 19-00110 and 19-00130. Triumph believes the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its assemblies is 9032, while CBP claims that 8538 is the proper subheading (see 2109170030) (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00094).
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.
CBP erroneously classified importer Topcon Positioning System's rotating laser levels under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9031, the importer argued in a Sept. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By failing to analyze the principal use of the laser levels, CBP neglected to properly classify the products under HTS subheading 9015,the complaint said (Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00189).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's mandatory respondent selection process in a countervailing duty case on wood flooring resembled "Russian roulette" due to fundamental errors in the CBP data used to make the respondent picks, plaintiffs in a case at the Court of International Trade said in four briefs (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03885).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's decision to grant byproduct offsets for an antidumping review respondent's fish oil and fish meal exports was backed by sufficient evidence, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 20 order. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also ruled that Commerce's determination that the Global Trade Atlas' (GTA) data was the best available to calculate a surrogate value for the two byproducts was properly supported.
Importer Triumph Engine Control Systems filed a Sept. 16 consent motion at the Court of International Trade to designate a tariff classification challenge on circuit card assemblies as a test case for four other of its lawsuits. Triumph believes the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading is 9032, while CBP says 8538 is the correct subheading for the assemblies. The other four cases -- CIT #19-00108, 19-00109, 19-00110 and 19-00130 -- deal with "merchandise and legal issues that are substantially identical," to those in the proposed test case, the motion said. The Justice Department consented to the test case motion (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00094).
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 are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: