The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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.
An amended fraud allegation by the government against Crown Cork & Seal should withstand a motion to dismiss, a July 27 government opposition brief said (United S ork & Seal, USA, Inc., et al., CIT #21-361).
The U.S and importer Target General Merchandise reached a settlement over the proper classification of girl's glitter/fabric ballet shoes, the parties said in a July 26 stipulation of dismissal. The Court of International Trade then order the case be dismissed without providing any details as to the settlement. Target launched its case in 2017, though the matter sat on the customs case management calendar for over four years. The ballet shoes were entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6402.99.41 as oxford height footwear of the slip-on type, dutiable at 12.5%, though CBP liquidated them under subheading 6402.99.49, dutiable at 37.5%. Target, via its October 2021 complaint, laid out its case for the shoes to be classified under this first subheading (Target General Merchandise v. U.S., CIT #17-00007).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 opinion ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, redenominating the counterclaim seeking a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for various decorative items as a defense. Adopting the court's recent decision in a separate customs case, Judge Gary Katzmann held that there is no statutory basis for the U.S. to file a counterclaim. However, the judge granted the U.S.' bid to amend its answer to Second Nature's complaint to incorporate the arguments found in its counterclaim, finding the plaintiff's arguments unconvincing. The importer said the amendment is barred by the finality of liquidation, illegal on Constitutional grounds and unreasonably prejudicial.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.' counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to toss the counterclaim as moot. The counterclaim sought to reclassify Cyber Powers' cable imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim.
Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under heading 0811 as "fruit and nuts," rather than under heading 2106 as "food preparations," the government said again in a July 18 brief in support of its May 23 motion to dismiss (see 2205240031) (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West). v. U.S., CIT #20-00131). None of the products at issue constitute “food preparations” of heading 2106 as they are not subject to the level of processing that is typical of “food preparations.” Instead, the "all-fruit mixes at issue are classifiable under the eo nomine provision for frozen '[f]ruit' in Heading 0811, [Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.], pursuant to GRI 1," the brief said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: