The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold on goods from China, which was made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said they already have granted all the relief the importer is seeking, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief.
There may be a "bifurcated" process for duty refund should the plaintiffs prevail in litigation over the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade lawyer said. That could include a court-ordered process in addition to a separate administrative process because of the volume of claims that will arise should the courts decide that IEEPA is not an appropriate authority for tariffs.
There may be a "bifurcated" process for duty refund should the plaintiffs prevail in litigation over the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade lawyer said. That could include a court-ordered process in addition to a separate administrative process because of the volume of claims that will arise should the courts decide that IEEPA is not an appropriate authority for tariffs.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on July 22 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 following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was assigned to the latest case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in a text-only order. Ezra was appointed to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, though he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Texas court in 2013 to help manage the court's caseload (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
Petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 22 dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade on the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resin from Taiwan. The suit was filed June 26. Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00148).
Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on July 23, arguing that the Commerce Department illegally decided to limit the full duty drawback adjustment to which Assan is entitled by statute in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from Turkey. The result of the review was a 2.34% AD rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).
Wisconsin resident Gary Barnes' motion to have the Court of International Trade set aside its decision to dismiss his case against the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is an "unwarranted" motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said. Even if the motion is an amended complaint, as Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in ordering the government to respond, it fails to allege a "particularized, actual or imminent injury and should be dismissed," the U.S. said (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
Opponents of NAB’s petition for a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0 pressed their case with aides to FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a meeting last week, according to an ex parte filing Monday. The Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge, cable trade groups and the LPTV Broadcasters Association said the FCC shouldn’t require a nationwide shift to ATSC 3.0. “If broadcasters are concerned about market demand for ATSC 3.0 tuners, they need to do their part in consumer education and promotion rather than seeking a technology mandate,” said the filing. “Stakeholders representing all aspects of the television ecosystem do not support NAB’s proposal. This Administration has prioritized regulatory reduction, and it would be counterproductive to adopt new mandates that decrease flexibility and increase costs.”