The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
Customs Duty
A Customs Duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs Duty Rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight.
Customs brokers don't need to receive duties directly from an importer and can receive funds from a middleman, CBP said in a ruling issued Aug. 25 and released by the agency Sept. 6 (HQ H318461). The decision followed a request from World Customs Brokerage (WCB) for a binding ruling regarding broker relations with unlicensed persons. Both WCB and freight forwarder World Courier, Inc. (WCI) are subsidiaries of AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and WCI often forwards imports to WCB for customs brokerage services and bills and receives payment through WCI.
Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) for CBP will next meet remotely Sept. 14, CBP said in a notice. Comments are due in writing by Sept. 9.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that called into question the use of first sale treatment for imported goods involving non-market economy countries (see 2208110060) is largely seen as providing a welcome relief to importers, several law firms said. "For those importers enjoying the benefits of lower declared values and duties, particularly from China in light of Section 301 tariffs, there is no longer a need for concern now that, on appeal, the court has given first sale a nod," Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman said on a podcast. The original CIT decision (Meyer Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1392) raised some concerns for the future of first sale treatment (see 2104200028).
Two importers each will pay seven-figure sums to settle False Claims Act lawsuits related to the undervaluation of their customs entries and underpayment of duties, DOJ said Aug. 11. Apparel importer Luchiano Visconti and its manager, Sasha Hourizadeh, will together pay $3.64 million to settle allegations they sent fraudulent invoices to their customs broker that understated the actual price paid. In a separate settlement, Eos Energy Storage will pay $1.02 million to resolve allegations that it failed to declare assists and other additions to transaction value.
CBP has no basis to consider a country’s non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Aug. 11 in a widely anticipated decision involving cookware imported by Meyer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely.
Importers of finished goods and manufacturing inputs told the International Trade Commission across three days of testimony that the Section 301 tariffs are damaging profit margins, and in some cases lead to layoffs. But some unions and manufacturers said the Section 301 tariffs are deserved for Chinese abuses, and with the tariffs in place, the goods they make are more competitive. The International Trade Commission is studying the efficacy of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs, and their economic impact.
Any chances that the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods would stimulate U.S. importers to shift their supply chains to alternative countries of origin were obliterated when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Jonathan Gold, National Retail Federation vice president-supply chain and customs policy, told the International Trade Commission in a virtual hearing July 21. The ITC completed three days of public hearings July 22 as part of its Tariff Act Section 332 investigation into the tariffs’ economic impact on U.S. industries.