Always Aftfer Me Marbits

Once while wondering aimlessly in Whole Foods, I grabbed a sample "gourmet marshmallow." I was not expecting anything too different from the Campfire marshmallows we used toast as kids. I was wrong. They were great. They were much less sweet and closer in consistency to nougat than to what I had expected. Since then, I have learned that some people (but no one I know) make marshmallows at home. See here if you want to try.

In a completely different universe are those tiny colored rocks found in Lucky Charms. Over the years, I have referred to them as marshmallows or marshmallow bits. It turns out that is not correct. Instead, those "charms" are "marbits," which are described by Customs and Border Protection as dried marshmallow confections. Here is the full description from HQ H014873 (Jun. 5, 2007):

The samples are dry, brittle, multi-colored pieces, approximately ½-inch wide and ¼-inch thick, in the form of hearts, half-moons, hats, and other objects. The ingredients breakdown provided with your November letter states the pieces are composed of approximately 51 percent sugar, 19 percent water, 11 percent corn syrup, 10 percent dextrose, 7 percent corn starch, 2 percent gelatin, and less than one percent flavoring. The laboratory analysis found the sample contained 66.2 percent sucrose and 14.8 percent glucose on a dry weight basis.


Sounds appetizing, doesn't it? Funny thing is that in the context of a bowl of Lucky Charms, they rock.

Well, CBP has recently decided that its original classification of these marbits as food preparations not elsewhere specified or included was wrong. On August 8, 2008, CBP issued a notice (go to page 17) revoking several earlier marbit rulings and proposing to classify the products in HTSUS item 1704.90.35 as other confections, which is where CBP classifies marshmallows.

I just thought you'd want to know.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more