Brian Feito

CBP is unjustifiably holding up regulatory changes for drawback required by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 by including them in a 450-page regulatory package that may take years to wind through the rulemaking process, said several companies challenging CBP’s interim drawback procedures at the Court of International Trade in a recent legal brief. Responding to the government’s motion to dismiss their case, the plaintiffs said part of the reason CBP hasn’t yet issued its new drawback calculation rules is likely because its upcoming Part 190 proposal includes non-urgent, optional conforming regulations that go beyond Congress’ mandate.

It’s of the “utmost importance” that importers ensure their mailing addresses in ACE and Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) numbers are up to date as CBP begins processing refunds for entries during the recent lapse in the Generalized System of Preferences program, a CBP official said on CBP’s biweekly ACE call held April 26. CBP prefers that the information be updated electronically, as processing of paper requests may not happen until after refunds checks have been cut and mailed, which should happen for most filers by mid-July, the official said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 16-22:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 9-15:

CBP is continuing work to resolve questions that have arisen on Section 321 clearance through foreign-trade zones, said Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner-trade at CBP, in an April 10 interview. The agency is still considering a ruling request on whether larger shipments can be brought into foreign-trade zones, then broken up into smaller shipments valued under the $800 de minimis so they can be entered exempt from taxes and fees under Section 321 (see 1802140015).

Roasted sunflower seeds imported by Well Luck are classifiable in the tariff schedule as prepared foods, not in a subheading specifically for sunflower seeds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said as it affirmed a lower court ruling, albeit with different reasoning. Though the seeds are classifiable in both subheadings, the subheading for prepared foods is more specific because it involves additional processing and is more difficult to satisfy, the Federal Circuit said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 2-8:

The Court of International Trade on April 5 rejected a bid to stop Section 232 tariffs on steel products, finding the recently announced 25 percent tariff may be imposed for economic reasons in addition to national security. The court denied Severstal’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring imposition of the tariffs on the importer, and will now proceed to hear arguments over whether it should dismiss the case entirely.

U.S. Auto Parts seeks a court order barring CBP from imposing “baseless and excessive” single entry bond requirements on its shipments for purported intellectual property rights violations, it said in a complaint filed April 2. CBP Norfolk is requiring a bond of three times entered value on all of the importer’s entries due to concerns that U.S. Auto Parts is importing aftermarket replacement auto grilles that infringe trademarks held by the car manufacturers. But the allegedly infringing parts only make up a small portion of its overall imports, and in any case should not be considered counterfeit, U.S. Auto Parts said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 26 - April 1: