Customs and Trade News
In a tortured classification analysis of articles that could only be used in the playing of football, the U.S. Court of International Trade concluded that football jerseys and girdles were appropriately classified as apparel rather than sports equipment. It is difficult to contemplate anyone wearing the subject articles as apparel outside of the confines of the football field and the decision looks ripe for an appeal. The full decision can be read here:
Riddell v. U.S.
In a recent decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court held that the popular Jack Link's Beef Jerky - of 'Messing with Sasquatch" tv ads - is correctly classified as cured beef, thereby imposing a 3.1% higher duty rate than claimed by the importer. See the decision here:
Link Snacks v. U.S.
In a recent U.S. Court of International Trade opinion, Judge Barzilay held that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the importer's claim. Customs had rejected the importer's entry on the basis that the claimed value was inaccurate. Instead of refiling the entry and protesting the subsequent liquidation, the importer protested the rejection. The court did chastise Customs for denying the protest, Customs should have rejected the protest as well, because it did mislead the importer into summoning that protest denial to the CIT.
The opinion can be found here:
Sunshine Int'l v. U.S.
In a recent U.S. Court of International Trade opinion, the court determined that Customs' classification of the subject flower vases was correct because their principal use was decorative, not for packing purposes as argued by the importer. See the decision here:
Dependable Packaging v. U.S.
The U.S. Court of International Trade recently rejected a Customs' HQ ruling and the ITC finding in a recent patent infringement case and found the importer's coaxial cable fittings did not infringe the subject patent. In an interesting opinion, Judge Gordon found that deference was not warranted for the two agencies' determinations in Corning Gilbert v. U.S. The opinion can be found here: