Fariha Kabir, a former international trade litigation attorney at CBP, has left the agency to join Faegre Drinker as an associate, she announced on LinkedIn. Kabir had worked at CBP since 2021, helping with the litigation of customs matters before the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including cases on tariff classification and value, the exclusion or detention of import entries, and CBP regulations.
While many attorneys believe that one of the cases on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs is on a collision course with the Supreme Court, questions remain about exactly when the high court will review the case and in what form. One possibility would see the lead appeal, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which currently sits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, head to the Supreme Court's emergency, or "shadow," docket.
Importer Cozy Comfort filed its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 25, arguing that the Court of International Trade was wrong to find that the company's product, The Comfy, is a pullover and not a blanket (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 vacated the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries, though the court declined to compel NMFS to issue an import ban on fish and fish products from these fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
CBP improperly classified certain toy lips as candy under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 17 instead of "other toys" under Chapter 95, said importer Imaginings, doing business as Flix Candy, in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. Flix said that while the lips consist of two components, the plastic lips and a candy lollipop, the lips give the item its "essential character" and thus qualify the goods for Chapter 95 classification (Imaginings 3, d/b/a Flix Candy v. United States, CIT # 21-00403).
Importer Allied Stone agreed to pay $12.4 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act by evading antidumping duties and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China, DOJ announced. The FCA case was initially filed by Melinda Hemphill, a whistleblower in the case, who will receive a $2,170,875 cut of the settlement.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 4-10:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will likely rule against the Trump administration in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it's unclear under what exact rationale the court will do so, said Peter Harrell, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration.
Target General Merchandise's string light models are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 13. Judge Lisa Wang ruled that Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees.”
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 10 against importer Rago Tires, seeking $56,435.48 for gross negligence in classifying its tires as not subject to antidumping duties and countervailing duties (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).