Industry insights

Global Trade Brief – April 2019

May 3rd, 2019, Posted in Global Trade Brief

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations Committed by its Chinese-Based Subsidiary Jiangsu Guoqiang Tools Co. Ltd

Export Operations

Facts:

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (The “U.S. company”), began acquisition negotiations with Jiangsu Guoqiang, its Chinese-based subsidiary (the “Chinese entity”), in 2011. At this time, the U.S. company discovered that the Chinese entity had exported products to Iran, after which the U.S. Company undertook certain steps and training in order to stop trade with Iran.

Between June of 2013 and December of 2014, Chinese entity attempted to export 23 shipments of items such as power tools and spare parts, having a total value of about $3.2 million. These shipments were to be sent directly to Iran or to a third-party country who had knowledge that these goods were intended specifically for supply, transshipment or re-exportation (directly or indirectly) to Iran. The transactions would have been seen as prohibited, if U.S officials had gained knowledge of them.

The U.S. Company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations on behalf of its Chinese entity

Conclusion:

OFAC determined that these violations constituted an “egregious case” and announced that Stanley Black & Decker and its Chinese subsidiary Jiangsu Guoqiang agreed to pay approximately $1.87 million to settle violations.

Source: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/CivPen/Documents/20190327_decker.pdf

 

HTSUS Classification of Quaker Pet Group Carrier Products

Quaker Pet Group, LLC. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-40 (CIT March 29, 2019)

Import Operations

Previously, the trade court held that, Quaker Pet Group’s (“Importer/Plaintiff”) carriers could not be classified under HTSUS heading 4202. Carriers are containers that organize, store, protect, and carry various items, because pets are living beings and not items. However, the undisputed facts available to the court at that time were insufficient to determine whether the company’s pet carriers could be covered by HTSUS 6307, a provision containing made-up articles of textile that are not included under any other tariff category or some other HTSUS heading. The parties began discovery, and provided the court with additional, undisputed facts, which now permit the trade court to conclude that Plaintiff’s carriers should be classified under HTSUS 6307.

Based on undisputed material facts, importer’s products were properly classified under HTSUS Heading 6307 because they were made-up articles of textiles that cannot be classified under any other heading. The trade court granted summary judgment for the importers.

Source: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/19-40.pdf

 

ITC Determinations, Large-Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada, Greece, Korea and Turkey

Import Operations

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced its findings in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations concerning large-diameter welded (LDW) pipes imported from Canada, Greece, Korea and Turkey.

  • The ITC made affirmative determinations with respect to the antidumping duty investigations of line pipe and structural pipe from Canada, Greece, Korea and Turkey.
  • The ITC made affirmative determinations with respect to the countervailing duty investigation of line pipe from Korea and of structural pipe from Korea and Turkey.
  • The ITC voted to terminate the countervailing duty investigations of line pipe from Turkey and of structural pipe from Greece.
  • The ITC made negative determinations with respect to the antidumping duty investigations of stainless-steel pipe from Canada and Korea, and with respect to the countervailing duty investigation of stainless-steel pipe from Korea.
  • The ITC voted to terminate the antidumping duty investigations of stainless-steel pipe from Greece and Turkey and the countervailing duty investigation of stainless-steel pipe from Turkey.

Source: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2019/er0402ll1073.htm

 

CBP Procedures for Implementing Alcoholic Beverage Import Measures

Import Operations

Under the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA), reduced tax rates and/or tax credits apply for imports of certain limited quantities of distilled spirits, beer or wine, imported from each foreign producer/assigning entity, as described in the CBMA. The assignments of the tax credits or reduced tax rates by the foreign producer/assigning entity to all importers may not exceed the quantities allowed by law. Thus, for an importer to be eligible to receive a reduced tax rate or a tax credit, importers must substantiate that the foreign producer/assigning entity has assigned an allotment of its reduced tax rate or tax credits to the distilled spirits, beer, or wine imported by that importer, and that the quantitative limits have not been exceeded.

  • CBP “strongly encourages” importers who are claiming a reduced tax rate, or tax rate incorporating applicable tax credits as permitted by the CBMA, for imports made during the 2019 calendar year to do so at the time of entry summary.
  • Importers must use the CBMA flag (Product Claim Code “C”) to identify entry lines for which the importer has received a CBMA assignment from a foreign producer/assigning entity and for which the CBMA rate is claimed, and declare the CBMA rate.
  • Importers are to only use the CBMA flag when claiming the CBMA rate, which is a declaration that the importer has received a CBMA assignment from a foreign producer/assigning entity. They must use the CBMA flag at the time of entry summary filing or the filing of a post-summary correction.
  • For those importers that have liquidated entries for which they would like to claim the CBMA rate, the importer may file a protest. Importers filing protests claiming the CBMA rate need to identify “CBMA” in the protest issue dropdown.

CBP has stated that it will process and liquidate CBMA claims of calendar year 2019 on a monthly basis, according to date of entry. CBP will begin its review with the oldest entry on file with a CBMA claim and will work forward chronologically.  If the importer has a complete, valid and properly submitted claim and the assignment limit has not been reached at the time of CBP review, CBP will liquidate the entry and apply the CBMA rate.  For entries made after April 2, 2019, CBMA claimants are directed to file complete 2019 CBMA claims by the 15th calendar day of the month following the month of entry summary date to allow for proper CBP review and liquidation with applicable CBMA benefits. Importers may file a post-summary correction, within the applicable filing period, for completion or substantiation of the CBMA claim.  For liquidated entries, an importer is not precluded from filing a protest to complete or substantiate CBMA claims.

For a complete CBMA claim to be considered, the importer must provide CBP with a complete and accurate CBMA spreadsheet, controlled group spreadsheet and assignment certification. Missing, incomplete or inaccurate documents may result in the liquidation of entries at the higher non-CBMA rate.

Source: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/23b50b2?reqfrom=share

 

U.S. Arms Regulations Amended; Exemption for Government Agency Transfers

Export Operations

In the Federal Register, the U.S. State Department has released a final rule amending International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by revising the licensing exemption for transfers made by or for an agency of the U.S. government.

Effective April 19, 2019, the final rule revises ITAR provisions to clarify when exports, re-exports, re-transfers, temporary imports and performance of a defense service may be made by or for an agency of the U.S. government without a license (including by employees of the U.S. government in the performance of their official duties), and expands the scope of the ITAR exemption to allow for permanent exports, re-exports, and re-transfers, in addition to temporary exports and imports, and to allow transfers by third parties acting for the U.S. government.

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-04-19/pdf/2019-07696.pdf

 

Haverly Systems, Inc. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations

Export Operations

Facts:

In August of 2015, Haverly Systems, Inc. issued invoices relating to the licensing of software and software support services to a Russian energy company, an entity that was eventually listed by OFAC on a sanctions identification list). Although the invoices originally contained payment due dates of between 30 and 70 days from the date of issuance, approximately 70 days after the issuance of the invoices, the Russian company notified the U.S. company that it required certain corrected tax documentation in order to make the payment. The U.S. company took several months to obtain the corrected tax documentation. After receiving the tax documentation, the purchasing entity made the payment on the first invoice (which the U.S. company received in late May 2016, some nine months after its issuance).

From May 2016 to late October 2016, the Russian company made four attempts to remit payment related to the second invoice; each payment was rejected by financial institutions after determining the transaction was prohibited by OFAC’s regulations as debt of greater than 90 days maturity of an entity subject to the Ukraine sanctions regulations and an executive decree. At points during the period associated with these rejected payment attempts, the U.S. company received information from the purchasing entity regarding the rejected transactions.

OFAC identified the U.S. company as having transacted or dealt in new debt of greater than 90-days maturity of an entity on the sanction’s identification list. OFAC further determined that the U.S. corporation did not voluntary self-disclose the apparent violations to OFAC, and the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case.

Conclusion:

OFAC further determined that the U.S. corporation did not voluntary self-disclose the apparent violations to OFAC, and the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case. Haverly Systems, Inc. agreed to pay just over $75,000 to settle its potential civil liability for two apparent violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations.

 Source: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/CivPen/Documents/20190425_haverly.pdf

 

Imports of Glycine from India, China and Japan

Import Operations

Commerce made CVD findings only, with regard to imports of glycine from China, and determined that exporters from China received countervailable subsidies at a rate of 144.01%.

Commerce made AD and CVD findings with regard to imports of glycine from India, finding that exporters from India have sold glycine at less than fair value in the United States at rates of 7.75% to 10.86% and determined that exporters from India received countervailable subsidies at rates of 3.03% to 6.99%.

Commerce made AD findings only, with regard to imports of glycine from Japan, finding that exporters from Japan have sold glycine at less than fair value in the United States at rates of 53.66% to 86.22%.

Source: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2019/04/us-department-commerce-finds-dumping-and-countervailable-0