If the Supreme Court eliminates the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it may not mean the return of the de minimis exemption, which President Donald Trump also ended via IEEPA, trade lawyers told us.
A 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO is properly classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9705.10.0090 as a "collectors' piece of historical interest," rather than as a motor vehicle of subheading 8703.23.0190, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Ferrari 288 GTO LLC argued in a Jan. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Ferrari 288 GTO LLC v. United States, CIT # 26-00671).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 confirmed that the government's stipulation regarding the availability of refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "applies to all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 5-11:
The U.S. argued on Jan. 12 that the "undisputed facts" show that importer Lanxess' polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to speed up the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- can't accelerate a chemical reaction "in its condition as imported," thus removing it from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3915 as a "reaction accelerator" (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit on Jan. 8 against importers Skyline International and Skyline Brands, along with their owner Zainulabedin Subhani, alleging that the three defendants undervalued their entries of household merchandise. The government is seeking a penalty totaling over $3.4 million for the defendants' alleged fraud along with a judgment of over $447,000, which represents the duties avoided by the defendants (United States v. Skyline International, CIT # 26-00295).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 held that domestic sales, "in certain circumstances, may qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an appraisement method." CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, held that the Court of International Trade got it right when it said the transaction value statute, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), doesn't require an "international sale or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise to be considered as a sale 'for exportation to the United States.'"
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 29 - Jan. 4:
A recent antidumping petition on fresh winter strawberries from Mexico highlights a rarely used provision of the antidumping statute that allows the International Trade Commission to narrow the injury analysis to only a particular region in the U.S. Trade lawyers told us that there's clear statutory authority for a regional injury petition, but that the analysis may require a more pervasive showing of injury throughout the affected industry than an ordinary, nationwide injury analysis.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 22-28: