The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches, agreeing with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, in a March 30 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's opinion, Judges Kimberly Moore, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna said that the tuna pouches were "not minced" and "in oil," prompting their placement under subheading 1604.14.10.
Tariff classification rulings
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 ruled in a March 25 opinion that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Magid argued for classification in subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government, ruling that heading 6116 and subheading 6116.10.55 describe the gloves in question.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
CBP released its March 23 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 56, No. 11), which includes the following ruling actions:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Processes performed on steel bars do not constitute "further working" for the purposes of tariff classification, meaning the steel bars are still classifiable in a tariff subheading subject to Section 232 tariffs, DOJ said in a brief filed March 21 at the Court of International Trade. Arguing in favor of its cross-motion for judgment, DOJ said that imported grinding rods from China are still classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.40.00 as “Other bars and rods of other alloy steel … not further worked than forged." ME Global is seeking reclassification of the rods under the residual subheading 7326.11.00 as "other articles of iron or steel,” which are not subject to Section 232 tariffs (ME Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00179).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on March 18 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a domestic pipe producer seeking to compel CBP to provide it with information related to an alleged duty evasion scheme by two importers. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while the trade court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, Wheatland Tube Company improperly submitted its requests for information to CBP, and the agency properly rejected Wheatland's request to revoke a ruling letter.
The Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion that a customs spat over reimported swimsuits will head to phase two of trial. After sorting through whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement during the first phase, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that this condition was satisfied for classification under a duty-free tariff provision for U.S. goods returned. The court will now see if the remaining conditions are satisfied in order to grant SGS Sports duty-free treatment of the reimported swimwear.