Customs Law

I realize I have been gone for a while. The first Trump Administration generated enough compliance work, litigation, and general chaos to keep me too busy and too stressed to do many things. One such thing was writing this blog. I did it mainly because I enjoy the process, and it forced me to stay on top of cases from the Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Explaining those decisions in what I intend to be an approachable style helped me understand them. Over the past year, I have at times considered restarting the blog and never found the time or inspiration. Apparently, that has changed.  You may have noticed that the second Trump administration is off to a fast start in the trade space. We have new 10% tariffs on goods from China and 25% tariffs on an expanded list of steel and aluminum products. The 232 exclusion process has been shuttered. Reciprocal tariffs are being floated, as are potential tariffs on cars, pharmaceuticals, and chips....

When I saw that the Court of International Trade decision in Kent Displays  involves the classification of "a battery powered flexible eWriter device containing a pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film," I had a moment of technology-geek excitement. That feeling stemmed from my personal conversion from yellow legal pads to a reMarkable "paper tablet." Before I wax on in an ode to the reMarkable, let's deal with this case. Kent Displays imported a product called the Dashboard, which it describes as a green replacement for paper. The device is based on a "bistable cholesteric reflective LCD."  This review is of a different product from Kent Displays, but probably gives a good idea of how the Dashboard works. Here is an image from Kent Displays of its Blackboard Smart Pen Reusable Notebook.  Kent had been importing this product under HTSUS item 9013.80.7000, which at the time of entry covered: Liquid crystal devices not constituting articles pro...

For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege of organizing the Dominick L. DiCarlo – US Court of International Trade Lecture at the University of Illinois – Chicago Law School (FKA the John Marshall Law School). One of the great pleasures of this experience has been working with Court of International Trade judges who have graciously participated as keynote speakers. Last week, we presented the 22 nd edition during which I had the opportunity to interview the Honorable Jane A. Restani. In a discussion on the interpretation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Judge Restani mentioned her recent decision in Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States and asked whether I would post on the decision here. I had recently exchanged emails about the case and mistakenly thought I had already posted this. To ensure that I have not misled a judge or the audience at the event, here is that post. The question presented in this case was the classification of paper notebooks that ...

Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...

One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The...

 For the most part, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States has an internal logic and consistent format that eases navigation. Most of us who work with the HTSUS can easily communicate about Sections, Chapters, Headings, and Subheadings. There is, however, the occasional need to talk about the fragments of text that are neither subheadings, nor tariff items, nor statistical breakouts. They are the un-numbered lines. Take, for example, 8504.90, the subheading for parts of electrical transformers and similar products.  8504.90 is the subheading. The first tariff item below the subheading is 8504.90.20 covering printed circuit assemblies that fit within the scope of the un-numbered language between 8504.90 ("Parts") and 8504.90.20 ("Printed circuit assemblies"). There are two more of these un-numbered subdivisions below 8504.90.41. Normally, this oddity would not merit any discussion. For classification purposes, it is pretty clear that these un-numbered sn...