Complex composite temperature screening devices are properly classified as thermometers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9025 and are excluded from Section 301 duties under secondary tariff number 9903.88.12 CBP, ruled in a recently released headquarters ruling. The items at issue consisted of an infrared camera, a visual imaging camera, a temperature reference source, an ethernet cable, a power adapter and a power cord.
Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.
The National Taxpayers Union, a group that advocates for lower taxes, is urging members of the House of Representatives to vote against a resolution that would overturn the administration's decision to delay antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels from Southeast Asia that the Commerce Department says circumvent an earlier order against Chinese panels.
At a House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee hearing, Democrats talked up their legislative proposals -- two bipartisan, two not -- as answers to confronting China's trade agenda, and expressed skepticism of witnesses' advocacy for ending permanent normal trade relations with China, while some Republicans expressed interest in that approach, and one seemed cautious.
Importer SXP Schulz Xtruded Products needed a protest to properly challenge CBP's failure to apply a Section 232 duty exclusion on four entries of its steel forged and turned bars, the Court of International Trade ruled. Dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that SXP could have filed for an extension of liquidation while it was waiting for the Commerce Department to correct the erroneous exclusion it issued or simply have filed a protest, which would have queued up jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.