The government will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that its claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

Surety company Aegis Security Insurance moved the Court of International Trade on June 30 to dismiss the government's case looking to collect duties that have gone unpaid on entries of garlic imported in 2002. Aegis said the six-year statute of limitations to file such a claim runs from the date of liquidation of the underlying entries, arguing that two CIT judges have held as much and that the collections statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1505, compels such a finding (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 25-00051).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.

The Court of International Trade on June 26 heard oral argument in a suit from U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy against the Biden administration's decision to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Judge Timothy Reif heard from DOJ, the plaintiffs and counsel for various solar cell importers and exporters on whether Auxin waited too long to file suit and the propriety of applying retroactive relief, given that the affected importers would be subject to massive antidumping and countervailing duties without a chance for review (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president suspend the de minimis threshold to respond to a national emergency notwithstanding Section 321's limits on eliminating or modifying the threshold, the U.S. argued. Urging the Court of International Trade to side with the government in importer Detroit Axle's suit against the elimination of the de minimis threshold on Chinese goods, the U.S. said the IEEPA's language lets the president void pre-existing privileges granted by other authorities, such as Section 321 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in a customs penalty suit between the U.S. and importer Katana Racing resulted in a settlement of all issues, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reported on June 6 (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated and permanently enjoined all tariffs so far issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the reciprocal tariffs and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, which were imposed to address the flow of fentanyl, fall outside the authority IEEPA grants to the president.

In a sur-reply supporting its motion for judgment (see 2410220026), surety company Aegis Security Insurance said it was responding to several new arguments the U.S. raised in a reply defending CBP’s 2016 attempt to collect unpaid duties that had been outstanding since 2002 (see 2503210069) (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).