The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is proposing to revise its upcoming Section 301 actions on the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, including fees for vehicle carriers and restrictions on maritime transport services.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 2-8:
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between June 2 and June 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 20-23 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Expert witnesses testified that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code needs to be refined so that different sizes of semiconductor chips have their own numbers, and, more radically, suggested that the best way to mitigate overdependence on China for legacy chips is to require importers to report where the chips were designed and fabricated within products they are importing.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).