3,200+ importers file cases with the CIT!

white concrete pillar in grayscale photography
Photo by Anna Romanova on Pexels.com

As you are aware, the HMTX Industries LLC, et al., v. U.S., action initiated Sept. 10, 2020, in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) alleges the U.S. failed to comply with applicable law when it imposed the additional “List 3” and “List 4a” duties on certain imports from China. Since the filing, over 3,200+ importers have filed their own “piggyback” actions in the CIT.

As the 2-year limitations period likely expires this upcoming Thursday, September 24th, I expect many more importers to file additional cases.

If you paid 25% duties under the Section 301 List 3 and List 4A duties and want to also preserve your opportunity to receive a future refund – contact David Hsu immediately by phone/text at 832-896-6288 or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com, dh@gjatradelaw.com.

 

Get a refund of your List 3 and List 4A duties paid.

pexels-photo-3483098.jpeg
Photo by John Guccione http://www.advergroup.com on Pexels.com

A recent lawsuit filed in Federal court will address the question whether President Trump and his Administration lawfully imposed additional “trade war” duties on certain goods imported from China. The lawsuit alleges the goods included on “List 3” and “List 4A” were unlawfully enacted – and as such, importers who paid for the List 3 and 4A duties are entitled to a refund of duties paid with interest.

More specifically, the case of HMTX Industries LLC, et. al., v. US will determine whether the US did not comply with the applicable law when implementing the List 3 and List 4A duties on certain imports from China.

Importers who wish to preserve their opportunity to receive future refunds must act quickly to file their own “piggyback” actions in the CIT, as the lawsuit alleges a 2 year limitations period expiring Monday, September 21, 2020.

David Hsu and the trade law firm of Givens & Johnston stand ready to immediate file both CIT actions and CBP protests. To get the process started, contact David Hsu directly by phone/text to 832-896-6288 or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com,

Passenger van or cargo van? That is the question (well, for Ford at least).

red ford van

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A current case in federal court is attempting to address when or if a passenger van is actually a cargo van.

The case involves Ford Motor Company and their imports of passenger vans that removed a row of seats and sold the vehicles as cargo vans. Cargo vans were levied a duty of 25%, whereas their passenger van counterparts were only taxes 2.5%. Specifically, Ford imported “passenger vans” into the US from Turkey. After they cleared customs, the second row of seats were removed, windows blocked and holes on the floorboard for the seats were covered.

In 2017, the Court of International Trade ruled in Ford’s favor, but the government has appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments yesterday (Monday 11, 2019). Many are watching the ruling as this may impact what strategies companies implement when “tariff engineering” imports to avoid higher duty amounts.

Tariff engineering and finding alternate classifications under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the US (HTSUS) are common ways importers try to lower their duty amounts.

The Ford argument is the goods should be classified as they are imported and subsequent altering does not matter. However, the government claims Ford’s wording of the vehicle is “for the transport of persons” instead of goods, ie is a cargo van.

Will update as soon as a decision is made.

If you are interested in how your company can “tariff engineer” goods or want to discuss alternative classifications for your goods, contact experienced trade attorney David Hsu at 832-896-6288 or email David’s catchall email: attorney.dave@yahoo.com (will be sent to David’s dh@gjatradelaw.com) email.

Court of International Trade sides with Canadian textile importer and dismisses Customs $4.5 million penalty claim.

pexels-photo-236748.jpeg

In a just released decision by the the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the CIT dismissed U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) efforts to collect $4.5 million in penalties against Tricots Liesse 1983, Inc. (Tricots), a Candian textile company importing goods into the US. The full text of the CIT Slip Op. 18-29 can be found here.

In the instant case, Tricots tried to correct NAFTA rules of origin claims by filing a prior disclosure with CBP. CBP issued an administrative penalty and duty demand while not providing Tricots an opporutnity for oral hearings during the administrative proceedings. CBP then filed suit against Tricots in the CIT to collect $4.5 MM in penalties and duties. In response, Tricots filed a motion to dismiss the claims because CBP did not allow Tricots the opportunity to attempt administrative remedies.

In short, the CIT opinion faults CBP for not allowing Tricots a “reasonable opportunity” to make oral representations after issuing the penalty notice. This decision helps future importers by ensuring any importer has the opportunity to receive an administrative hearing before CBP imposes a penalty.

If you have received a penalty notice from Customs and need assistance, contact experienced trade and customs attorney David Hsu at 832-896-6288, or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com.