US Says It Won't Contest CIT's Ability to Order IEEPA Tariff Refunds for Plaintiffs
The U.S. on Dec. 11 filed its opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction in dozens of cases filed by Crowell & Moring seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00255).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The government said the court should deny the injunction request, which would halt liquidation of affected entries, since the government has "repeatedly assured plaintiffs and this Court that they will not oppose or object to the Court's authority to order reliquidation of plaintiffs' subject entries of merchandise." The U.S. added that it has also repeatedly told the plaintiffs it wouldn't object to a "final decision ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs' subject entries, should the Supreme Court hold the IEEPA duties at issue unlawful."
Crowell is one of the law firms filing dozens of lawsuits at CIT seeking refunds for IEEPA tariffs paid should the Supreme Court strike them down (see 2512040044). The firm is doing so on the basis that there's no currently protestable act, precluding the availability of administrative relief, and that the trade court itself may not have the power to order reliquidation, should the tariffs be struck down, if liquidation becomes final without a valid protest.
In its opposition to Crowell's injunction motion, the U.S. highlighted Crowell's "unequivocal position" that the purpose of the motion "is so that plaintiffs may obtain judicial relief in the event of a final decision finding the IEEPA duties unlawful, while at the same time maintaining a streamlined and administrable procedure for CBP."
The government said that in light of that reasoning, "the key premise" of the motion "dissolves." The theory behind the motion all hinges on the idea that without a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs won't be able to get refunds after a final Supreme Court decision on the tariffs. "But given defendants’ representations, that key premise is incorrect," the brief said. "The extraordinary and drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction is not warranted when it would give plaintiffs no practical relief."
The U.S. added that the balance of hardships and public interest favor the government, since the plaintiffs don't actually face any hardship in light of the government's assurances that they will get relief and the massive administrative burden that would be put on CBP to effectuate the injunction. The government noted the difficulty of pausing the liquidation of all the entries subject to the IEEPA tariffs, likening the case to the Section 301 litigation, in which CBP "explained the impossibility of suspending liquidation on the vast scale required" by that case, which involved far fewer entries.
"The diversion of resources would be even more crushing now when there are approximately 19.2 million unliquidated entries," the U.S. said. "It is not enough for plaintiffs to say that they are merely seeking an injunction with respect to their entries; issuing an injunction with respect to these plaintiffs will invariably result in countless other plaintiffs requesting the same."
Crowell also argued it's likely to succeed on the merits, since the controlling law at this moment is the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit striking down the IEEPA tariffs. The U.S. said this claim is "unavailing given the Supreme Court’s active consideration of the very tariffs at issue in this case."