A recent court decision on CBP’s authority to suspend liquidation of entries it suspects are covered by antidumping and countervailing duties cements the agency’s stance into one of stricter enforcement and could create some headaches for importers of some goods that are not clearly covered by AD/CVD orders, customs lawyers said in the wake of the ruling.
Brian Feito
Brian Feito is Managing Editor of International Trade Today, Export Compliance Daily and Trade Law Daily. A licensed customs broker who spent time at the Department of Commerce calculating antidumping and countervailing duties, Brian covers a wide range of subjects including customs and trade-facing product regulation, the courts, antidumping and countervailing duties and Mexico and the European Union. Brian is a graduate of the University of Florida and George Mason University. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2012.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 6-12:
A plastic-laminated aluminum foil meant for use in blister packaging is classifiable as an aluminum product, not as plastic film, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Jan. 3 and publicly released Jan. 10. Though both the plastic and aluminum components of Amcor’s “Formpack” material provide important characteristics, the aluminum foil protects the pharmaceuticals put into the eventual blister packaging and imparts the material’s essential character, CIT said.
Several types of hotel room furniture that had been the subject of antidumping duty evasion allegations are not actually subject to AD duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890), the Commerce Department said in a scope ruling issued Dec. 31.
CBP has the authority to interpret the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders when making decisions related to the release of goods, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 7 decision. Reversing parts of its own May 2019 decision (see 1905170047), the full court ruled “en banc” that CBP has the responsibility to decide whether AD/CV duties apply to specific entries, even if the scope of the relevant AD/CV duty order is ambiguous without a Commerce Department scope ruling.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 30 - Jan. 5:
The International Trade Commission is working to add provisions on the Trade Agreement between the United States and Japan to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S., James Holbein, director of the ITC’s Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, said in an interview Jan. 7. Technical issues with the ITC’s electronic system for updating the tariff schedule had led to the omission of new General Note 36, as well as provisions in chapter 99, from the 2020 Basic Edition of the HTS, Holbein said. The ITC’s information technology office is currently working to fix those issues, he said.
A portable solar charger with a plastic cover on its photovoltaic panel does not qualify for an exclusion for off-grid and portable panels from Section 201 safeguards on solar products from China, CBP said in a recently published ruling. The relevant exclusion covers only portable and off-grid panels that are foldable or that have glass covers, so Arlo’s chargers with plastic covers don’t qualify, CBP said in HQ H299136, issued in May but only posted to CBP’s Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) database on Dec. 18.
The International Trade Commission posted the 2020 Basic Edition of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The new HTS implements the U.S.-Japan trade deal that took effect Jan. 1, as well as changes to eligibility for African Growth and Opportunity Act benefits. Changes to units of quantity are also made to the tariff schedule, and new statistical breakouts are added in chapters 17, 38, 72, 76, 83, 84, 85 and 87. The changes also took effect Jan. 1.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 23-29: