An Indian exporter of granular polytetrafluorethylene, the generic version of Teflon, said March 27 that the “minute” amount of wind energy produced by an affiliate was not “primarily directed” at its own own PTFE manufacturing because electricity from certain sources can't be earmarked for any particular process (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).
Notable CROSS rulings
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 28 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 25 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 19 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 15-18 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 15 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 12 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
In a long-delayed motion for summary judgment in a case that began in 2018, a Swiss watch importer argued that CBP had relied on the wrong definitions of "watch crystal” and “watch case” when it misclassified its entries at a higher duty rate (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).
An exporter says a government brief failed to address its argument that the Commerce Department had found in a review that the exporter experienced large enough swings in production costs to call for a quarterly analysis, then went on to determine it had used differential pricing with the Cohen's d test anyway (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 7 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):