Customs Law

UPDATED: On second look, my typing was atrocious in this post. My muscle memory typed "court" several times when my brain wanted "count." I fixed that and a few other things without changing the substance. Also, I am now kicking myself for not using the obvious pun: this case is a "nail biter."  On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade denied a government motion to dismiss PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States , which is the lead case challenging the extension of Section 232 duties to so-called derivative products.  PrimeSource's complaint contained five counts challenging the former President's imposition of duties on steel nails. As a general matter, the argument is that the initial 232 investigation and the resulting Proclamation did not cover nail and that the extension of the remedy to derivative product violates the law and is void. The question is exactly what law was violated and how? To cov...

 The ongoing litigation over whether the Section 232 duties were properly extended to cover certain downstream products of steel and aluminum took an interesting detour in Slip Opinion 21-6 , which covers multiple related cases with the lead case being Primesource Building Products v. United States. This opinion addresses the effort by the American Steel Nail Coalition to intervene in the case as a defendant in support of the United States and the continued application of the duties to imported steel nails. The Coalition is an ad hoc group that is not a formal entity as would be, for example, a trade association organized as an entity under state and federal law. Essentially, the Coalition wants a seat at the table in this litigation to protect its own economic interest in the continuation of the tariffs. Intervention is permitted in federal courts like the Court of International Trade either by right or by leave of the Court. Take a look at CIT Rule 24 for the details. To have a ...

  Plexus Corp. v. United States is a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade in which the Court denied cross motions for summary judgment on the tariff classification of printed circuit board assemblies and chassis imported by Plexus for use in encoders, multiplexers, and remultiplexers. These devices are used to compress audio and video digital data, including voice so that it takes up less digital storage space and transmission bandwidth. While not technically required to successfully transmit data in networks, these devices make it cost effective to do so in a cost-effective manner, which is SMART . The compressed output can be viewed on computers, smartphones, television screens and other devices. The classification of the PCBA and chassis that are parts of the encoders, multiplexes, and remultiplexers are classified based on the classification of the devices of which they are parts. Henceforth, unless there is a reason to differentiate, I am going to refer to all th...

 As mentioned in my last post, tariff classification is all about giving every word of the relevant heading, subheading, and tariff item its proper meaning. We do that by looking for definitions in the Section and Chapter Notes, commentary in the Explanatory Notes, and prior court decisions. In Starkist Co. v. United States , the first word in question was " minced ." The imported merchandise was prepared tuna fish salad. The tuna was classifiable in Heading 1604, which covers, among other things, prepared or preserved fish. Immediately under Heading 1604 is a subheading dividing the heading into "Fish, in whole or in pieces, but not minced" versus "Other prepared or preserved fish." Customs determined that the tuna in question was not mined and was packed in oil. As a result, the merchandise was subject to a 35% base rate of duty under 1604.14.10. Plaintiff argued that the tuna was minced and not packed in oil, making it classifiable as a prepared meal of...

Sometimes I am forced to explain to non-customs and trade lawyers the basics of tariff classification and why it is an interesting area of law. I often use the metaphor of doing a complicated puzzle. There are rules to be followed (i.e., the General Rules of Interpretation, Section Notes, and Chapter Notes). Solving the puzzle requires properly applying the rules to the available facts. When you are lucky enough to have an issue that includes some ambiguity, you can use the rules and facts to advocate for the desired outcome. But, like all legal questions involving the interpretation of a statute, it is important that you focus on all the words. That is the main take away from SGS Sports, Inc. v. United States .  In a nutshell, this case is about whether swimwear imported from Canada could enter the U.S. duty free under HTSUS item 9801.00.20. That provision allows for duty-free entry for:  Articles, previously imported, with respect to which the duty was paid upon such previou...

 This is going to be my first catchup post and will hit the most salient points from some of the CIT and CAFC decision of the last six months. I may not cover everything, but as long as I am trying to read them, I may as well give you at least a blurb. You should read the full cases for details and keep in mind that the details matter. Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd.  involved a challenge to an ongoing enforcement action under the Enforce and Protect Act, 19 USC 1517 . Under this law, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is obligated to investigate allegations that an importer has avoided the payment of antidumping or countervailing duties through "evasion." In this context, evasion is the use of "any document or electronically transmitted data or information, written or oral statement, or act that is material and false, or any omission that is material, and that results in any cash deposit or other security or any amount of applicable antidumping or countervailing duties be...