Published October 2, 2016 by

HTSUS 4202 Interpretative Methodology under Otter Products

On August 24, 2016, in Otter Products v. US,  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed with the Court of International Trade (CIT) decision that protective cases for smartphones that are specifically designed to fit these smartphones are not classifiable under HTSUS heading 4202.  For Otter Products, LLC this decision lowered duty from 20% to 5.3%, allowing them to use HTSUS 3926.90.99 (other articles of plastic provision).  Perhaps more interesting, if not important, outcome of the opinion is the analysis and well-reasoned attack on the part of both plaintiff and defendant. HTSUS 4202 heading provides for: Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar containers; traveling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper: Since smartphone cases are not specifically provided under heading notes,…

Read More HTSUS 4202 Interpretative Methodology under Otter Products

Product Regulation U.S. Federal Agencies U.S. Federal Courts

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of International Trade Customs and Border Protection Harmonized Tariff Schedule Classification HTS Heading 4202

Published October 6, 2014 by

Customs Business is Personal

Certain individuals who work for corporations engaging in international trade, particularly imports, now have an excuse to ask for a raise.  On September 16, 2014 Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in U.S. v. Treck Leather held defendant-officer Mr. Shadadpuri personally liable for gross negligence while introducing merchandise into the commerce of United States under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a).  While requesting the raise, following arguments may be helpful: Any ‘person’ who engages in the behavior prohibited by 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a) is liable thereunder regardless of whether that ‘person’ is the importer of record or not.  U.S. v. Treck Leather, pg. 11. Person includes human beings, partnerships, associations, corporations, consignees, consignors, sellers, owners, importers, agents, and other persons.  U.S. v. Treck Leather, pp. 13-14. Corporate liability could not have been incurred but for direct involvement of a person.  U.S. v. Treck Leather, pg. 11 (“Trek’s gross negligence . . . could not have been conceded but for the direct involvement of Mr. Shadadpuri.”). Person imports merchandise through one or more companies owned by that person.  U.S. v. Treck Leather, pg. 19 (He “imported men’s suits through one or more of his companies.”). Person’s own acts are enough, no piercing of…

Read More Customs Business is Personal

U.S. Federal Courts

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Customs and Border Protection

Published June 26, 2007 by

$FESTIVE$

Wilton Industries Inc., v. United States case caused a great deal of excitement in the import and legal communities. After all, provided that certain criteria are met, utilitarian articles were eligible for duty free treatment all these years, and the CBP official interpretation was, at best, misleading? The practical benefits, usually coming in the form of duty refunds, are marginal for those importers that are/were not directly involved in these cases. The commodities addressed in Wilton, would not qualify for chapter 95 if entered after February 3rd, 2007, the time when chapter 95 note 1 (v) came in force. Then, one has to consider limitation of Park B. Smith invoked by CBP on April 5th, 2006. It is very important to note, that the question of limitation had almost no mention in Wilton. In the slip opinion it is briefly noted that “neither party has relied in any way on Customs’ recent action seeking to limit the application of Park B. Smith to the entries before the courts in that case.” There are good reasons for no mention: your protests are likely to be denied on the basis of that limitation. With this in mind, the procedural timeline does not…

Read More $FESTIVE$

Product Regulation U.S. Federal Agencies U.S. Federal Courts

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of International Trade Customs and Border Protection Harmonized Tariff Schedule Classification Home & Garden Products