The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Masterank America dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade, filing a notice of dismissal on March 10. The importer brought its suit in December 2024 to contest CBP's determination that its paraffin wax of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2712.20.0000, dutiable at 7.5%, has a country of origin of China. Masterank argued that the country of origin should be Taiwan. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Masterank America v. United States, CIT # 24-00235).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP and importer Motivation Design settled a customs case on pet carriers, with the government agreeing to go with the importer's preferred tariff classification for a lower duty rate. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade, the parties agreed that CBP will classify the pet carriers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6307.90.98, dutiable at 7%, as "other textile articles," instead of subheading 4202.92.90, dutiable at 17.6%, as a case with outer surface of textile materials. CBP classified the goods under subheading 4202.92.90 at entry (Motivation Design v. United States, CIT # 15-00212).
The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).