Customs Law

In TransPacific Steel v. United States , the United States Court of International handed the Commerce Department and the President a defeat with respect to the Section 232 duties imposed on aluminum and steel products from Turkey. This case is narrow in scope but important. The specific issue before the Court was whether Presidential Proclamation 9772  which made aluminum and steel products from Turkey subject to twice the rate of Section 232 duty than has been applied to products of other countries. Plaintiffs in this case raised several arguments seeking to overturn the proclamation and recover the excess duties paid. The first argument is statutory and procedural. Section 232 duties are the result of a process that begins when the Commerce Department initiates an investigation. The results of that investigation are then communicated to the President who can chose to take action. The President only has 90 days in which to decide whether he (in this case) is going to act and what that

Once again , the Court of International Trade has been asked to consider the status of apparel made from a synthetic yarn that includes zinc nanoparticles. This time, the decision is Lockhart Textiles Inc. v. United States . The decision ultimately turns on whether the yarn from which the apparel was made is of synthetic fibers or whether the addition of the zinc in the yarn production process makes it "metalized" and, therefore, an "other yarn." The result is significant. If the plaintiff's contention is correct, the apparel is classified in HTSUS item 6104.69.80, which carrier a rate of duty of 5.6%. If the United States is correct, the proper classification is 6104.63.20, which carries a rate of duty of 28.2%.  I know this is not true, but I can't read about clothing made of metalized yarn without assuming it looks like something from the closet of a Star Trek alien or the original Robinson family from Lost in Space. Reading this case, I was left with the

Last year, the Court of International Trade decided that plastic iPad Smart Cases, which function as both protective covers and stands are properly classified in HTSUS Heading 3926. Apple, on the other hand, wanted these covers classified in the duty-free provision covering accessories of computers in Heading 8473. We discussed the CIT decision here . Apple appealed and now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the CIT . There is not a lot new in the CAFC decision, but it does a really good job of setting out the legal process of tariff classification and the analysis that produced the result. So, if you are new to this stuff, read the decision. The nub of the issue is what to do with the Explanatory Notes of Heading 8473 and how to interpret the relevant note. The heading covers "Parts and accessories ( other than covers , carrying cases and the like) suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of headings 8470 to 8472." The relevant language