Importer and U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, Wanxiang America Corp. is guilty of negligence by making false statements and omissions over its entries of wheel hub assemblies, radial ball and tapered roller bearings, and universal joints and their parts, the U.S. argued in a July 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Through its negligence, Wanxiang America avoided antidumping duties and customs duties on its entries, cheating the U.S. out of over $31 million in lost revenue, the U.S. said. DOJ filed its case to seek the lost duty payments along with a penalty (United States v. Wanxiang America Corporation, CIT #22-00205).
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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. could not withdraw from Hongteo's customs classification lawsuit. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kiyasov of Rock Trade Law -- could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified. Pilon and Kiyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo did not pay its outstanding legal fees.
Importer Charman Manufacturing didn't evade antidumping duties on its malleable cast iron pipe fittings imported from China, CBP said in a July 5 determination. After looking into claims from Matco-Norca that Charman skirted the duties by transshipping the pipe fittings through Indonesia or Singapore, CBP said it didn't have substantial evidence proving these claims. The determination in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation is one of only a handful of times that CBP has come back with a negative evasion finding.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department submitted its remand results July 5 in an antidumping duty review challenge originally brought by Risen Energy Co. at the Court of International Trade. Commerce switched its positions on applying adverse facts available over unreported factors of production data -- reverting to neutral facts available -- and on how to value silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency stuck by its positions, though, on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. The latter two positions remain contested by the plaintiffs, but they consented to Commerce's switch on the FOP data and silver paste (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03743).
The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se and seeking to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher on a customs broker license exam, appealed the answers to two questions. Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer DS Services of America's motion for a preliminary injunction in its case seeking to reinstate a previously granted exclusion from Section 301 China duties for water coolers classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8418.69.0120. The court's order suspends the liquidation of the plaintiff's unliquidated entries while allowing the U.S. to continue to collect Section 301 duties, as the injunction is structured like a statutory injunction routinely entered in antidumping and countervailing duty cases (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: