Importer Cyber Power Systems erred in analyzing whether its cables fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90, which provides for cables "of a kind used for telecommunications," by only looking to the "device and industry in which" its cables are used, the U.S. argued (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Dec. 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 U.S. declined to prosecute a criminal trade fraud case against global plastic resin distributor MGI International and its subsidiaries Global Plastics and Marco Polo International, DOJ announced on Dec. 18. The agency agreed to credit a $6.8 million payment made by MGI to settle a civil case against the company for knowingly failing to pay customs duties on plastic resin entries from China in its decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation for the same conduct.
Ceratizit USA, a North Carolina-based tungsten carbide distributor, agreed to pay $54.4 million to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act by "knowingly and improperly failing to pay duties owed on tungsten carbide products" from China, DOJ announced.
The U.S. agreed to liquidate hoverboards imported by 3BTech under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8711.60.000 and exclude the goods from Section 301 China tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.17. 3BTech and the U.S. filed a stipulated judgment in the importer's test case on the issue, which resolves the spat in favor of 3BTech (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
Attorneys at Grunfeld Desiderio filed an application for a temporary restraining order last week against the liquidation of entries in various cases that were assessed tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In its response filed on Dec. 16, the U.S. repeatedly cited the Court of International Trade's recent decision to deny an injunction against liquidation in other cases seeking IEEPA tariff refunds on the grounds that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of finally liquidated entries in Section 1581(i) cases (see 2512150029) (Strato Technology Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00322).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade denied a group of importers' motion for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of their entries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on the basis that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of the entries if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the trade court's previous decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Although Judge Timothy Reif said he made a mistake of fact in the initial decision, the mistake was a "harmless error," and that no mistake of law was made.
The U.S. on Dec. 11 filed its opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction in dozens of cases filed by Crowell & Moring seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00255).