Auto Parts Importer Challenges CBP Decision to Not Extend Section 301 Exclusion to Its Entries

CBP was incorrect to not extend a Section 301 tariff exclusion on side protective attachments for cars onto Keystone Automotive Operations' entries, the importer said in its Sept. 2 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Claiming that the auto parts fit under the terms of the exclusion, Keystone is challenging CBP's deemed denial of its protest (Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00215).

In April 2020, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted a Section 301 tariff exclusion to Polaris Industries for side armor protection. In the language of the exclusion, USTR said that "Tire carrier attachments, roof racks, fender liners, side protective attachments, the foregoing of steel (described in statistical reporting number 8708.29.5060)," are excluded from Section 301 duties.

Seeking to capitalize on such an exclusion, Keystone sought to extend it onto its entries. The importer argued that exclusions are applicable to any product that meets the written description of the goods. As such, Keystone's imports qualify for the exclusion under the term "side protective attachment," it said. Keystone protested CBP's decision to assess the imports with a 25% duty rate under the Section 301 China tariffs, but the protest was deemed denied after the "Center Director failed to allow or deny" it within 30 days of it being mailed.