The U.S. on May 12 opposed four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid for an injunction against tariffs imposed on Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's resolution of the tribal members' appeal of a Montana district court's order transferring the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.

The libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation opposed the government's bid to stay its case at the Court of International Trade challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently filing a motion for summary judgment and expedited consideration of its case (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a supplemental brief in their lawsuit against all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the states said the Court of International Trade should enjoin enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs, set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs and declare the IEEPA tariffs "unlawful" (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

A number of importers self-describing as “small businesses in various fields” and led by Princess Awesome, a girls’ clothing seller, added a third amicus curiae brief to the growing number opposing President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs (see 2505120057 and 2504240028). They said they filed to “emphasize the irreparable harm caused by the President’s arbitrary and ever-changing tariff policy” (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Given the fast-evolving trade dynamics in the U.S., some suppliers from China have been advising importers to take advantage of delivered duty paid terms -- which is bad advice and can get companies in trouble with CBP, customs consultant Tom Gould said during a May 13 webinar hosted by Revenue Vessel.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).