MGT3606 International Business Law Customs

MGT 3606 International Business Law Questions

MGT 3606 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW CUSTOMS AND EXPORT LAW GROUP PROJECT

Team Members:

SHORT ANSWER: Please answer the following questions. Each question is worth the number of points noted at the end of the question.

1. Please complete the following chart with the dutiable rate of each of these goods if they were imported into the United States utilizing the General Tariff and Smoot-Hawley columns of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Each good is worth two points. (22 points)

 GOOD      GENERAL RATE COLUMN   SMOOT-HAWLEY COLUMN 2

 Live parakeets Ball point pens Cat food put up for retail sale Nativity scenes and figures Tulip bulbs Dentists’ chairs Bagpipes Complete set of golf clubs Tailors’ dummies and other mannequins Sake Law Dude “Sue Everyone” game with board of a special design

2. How would the following goods be classified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) utilizing the rules discussed in class? What do each of these rules state and how do they apply to these cases? Each case may be resolved through the application of a single classification rule discussed in class. Each subpart is worth three points. (12 points) (Answer limited to one page)

A. Protective gear consisting of knee pads, elbow pads, and wrist guards designed and marketed for use with in-line roller skates which the importer claims are entitled to duty-free treatment as “accessories” to the in-line skates under the HTS but which CBP claims are “other sports equipment” not otherwise defined in the HTS subject to a 4% ad valorem tariff. The HTS does not define the term “accessories” in this context.

B. Electric razors which the importer claims are entitled to duty-free treatment as shavers or hair clippers under the HTS but which CBP claims are “mechanical domestic appliances with a self-contained electric motors” subject to a 4.2% ad valorem tariff..

C. Pierre Soufflé ready-to-cook spaghetti meals consisting of uncooked spaghetti (duty-free), grated cheese (16% ad valorem), and tomato sauce (6% ad valorem) all sold together in a single carton.

D. Outer casings and inner tubes for bicycle tires imported together and compatible in size, volume, and valve stem size which the importer claims are entitled to a 5% ad valorem tariff as “pneumatic tires” under the HTS but which CBP claims are subject to two tariffs imposed simultaneously as inner tubes subject to a 15% ad valorem tariff and outer tire casings subject to a 5% ad valorem tariff.

3. You are employed as the customs broker for Honshu Piano Company, a Japanese corporation that manufactures and exports upright and grand pianos to the United States. The Board of Directors of Honshu has asked for your opinion on the following course of action. Honshu is interested in exporting its latest high-end upright piano, the Sonata Grand II, to the United States. However, it is concerned about tariffs given that the dutiable value of each piano may be as high as $25,000. The tariff upon upright pianos imported into the United States is 4.7% ad valorem according to the HTS. In response to these concerns, the Board of Directors of Honshu is considering separately exporting prefabricated component parts of the Sonata Grand II to Honshu’s plant in Dhoogastan, assembling the pianos at this plant and exporting them to the United States claiming that they are a product of Dhoogastan and are subject to duty-free treatment pursuant to the U.S.-Dhoogastan Free Trade Agreement.

Based upon these facts, the Board of Directors has addressed the following question to you, specifically, what would be the country of origin for the Sonata Grand II pianos produced utilizing this scenario? Please explain your answer utilizing all of the elements discussed in class. (8 points) (Answer limited to one page)

 4. Killem Chemicals is a U.S.-based manufacturer of agricultural chemicals. Killem recently sold two thousand gallons of Insta-Death, its most toxic weedicide, to South Asian Exports (SAE), a trading company acting as a middleman headquartered in Singapore. SAE refused to disclose the use that it intended to make of the product and paid cash upon its delivery. SAE ultimately shipped the Insta-Death to the Syrian government for use in its chemical weapons program. Is Killem liable for the ultimate transshipment of Insta-Death to Syria? What principle of law is applicable to this case? Please define this principle and explain its application to this case. (8 points) (Answer limited to one page)