Importer Generac Power Systems brought on Dec. 20 two complaints to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP, in 2020, applied Section 301 tariffs to multiple of its entries despite excluding “substantially identical” merchandise (Generac Power Systems v. U.S., CIT # 20-03882, -03920).

CBP has moved up the target date for when the agency expects to deploy an enhancement that could affect facilities handling low-value Section 321 shipments.

A bipartisan, bicameral bill would create a Maritime Security Trust Fund, into which revenues would come from tonnage fees on Chinese-owned and Chinese-flagged ships visiting U.S. ports, special tonnage taxes, light money, and tariffs and duties, including Section 301 tariffs.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

A bipartisan, bicameral bill would create a Maritime Security Trust Fund, into which revenues would come from tonnage fees on Chinese-owned and Chinese-flagged ships visiting U.S. ports, special tonnage taxes, light money, and tariffs and duties, including Section 301 tariffs.

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative opened an investigation into Chinese manufacturing of legacy (or foundational) semiconductors, "including to the extent that they are incorporated as components into downstream products for critical industries like defense, automotive, medical devices, aerospace, telecommunications, and power generation and the electrical grid."

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).

In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).