Catching Up on 301

I feel lousy today. We all spent the last 15 months is varying levels of quarantine. Now, we are emerging. I am fully vaccinated. My family is fully vaccinated. So, we are letting down our collective guard. That seems to have been a mistake. Following a family gathering last weekend and a couple restaurant outings, I have a terrible head cold. My unscientific theory is that my immune system got bored during the pandemic and basically quit or at least went on vacation. Nevertheless, I am reading customs cases.

Related the 301 duties is a recent decision of the CIT in ARP Materials, Inc. and Harrison Steel Casting Co.  The issue here was whether the Court had jurisdiction of review the collection of Section 301 duties. This case is different than the Section 301 litigation discussed above in that the underlying issue was whether the merchandise was properly subject to an exclusion added to the HTSUS as the classification of the merchandise. Using just one of the plaintiff's facts for illustration, the relevant exclusion is HTSUS item 9903.88.43, which implements Note 20(vv) and covers, among other things "“[m]ountings and fittings suitable for motor vehicles of iron or steel, of aluminum or of zinc, other than pneumatic cylinders (described  in statistical reporting number 8302.30.3060).” HTSUS  Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. note 20(vv)(96).

The question before the Court was whether Customs' decision to collect duties for merchandise arguably subject to the exclusion is protestable. If so, to the extent plaintiffs failed to timely file valid protests (which they apparently did not do in all cases), no relief is available. On the other hand, if the protest was either (1) manifestly inadequate or futile or (2) not permitted, then the case could proceed under the Court's residual jurisdiction. 

According to this court, this dispute is entirely about CBP's interpretation of the exclusions and its application of the exclusions to the subject merchandise. As such, this is a protestable decision because CBP engaged in a decision-making process, rather than acting in a purely ministerial manner. The importer should have protested. Having missed the protest date, the liquidation is final, and the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
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...
Read more