The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 24 - March 1:
Four more importers have now filed lawsuits challenging Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives,” and one of them has already been successful in obtaining a court order blocking liquidation of their entries, if not collection of the tariffs. New Supplies and GJ Burkhart (dba Fry Fastening Systems) together filed a suit at the Court of International Trade Feb. 25. Represented by Brenda Jacobs, they told the court that the Justice Department had agreed to an order directing CBP to suspend liquidation until the case is eventually decided. CIT granted the motion and issued the order on Feb. 28.
While it is too soon to tell whether recent U.S. reforms of foreign direct investment screening will prove successful, the regulations introduced novel provisions to incentivize improved global investment screening, according to a former investment screening counsel for the Treasury Department. The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (see 2001140060) also appears to fill many of the gaps encountered by previous U.S. investment screening efforts, said Anne Salladin, a Hogan Lovells lawyer and former senior counsel to the chairperson of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.
CBP “must process and pay substitution drawback claims” for excise taxes that were previously prohibited under regulations struck down by a Court of International Trade judgment Feb. 18, according to a copy of the order added to the CIT website on Feb. 25. The judgment invalidates portions of CBP’s regulations, as amended following passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, that sought to prevent “double drawback” for claims involving excise taxes, including amended definitions of “drawback” and “drawback claim” under the 2017 drawback regulations (see 1812170013).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative would need to provide specific guidance to CBP in order to change treatment of goods from foreign-trade zones that were subject to the recently decreased Section 301 tariffs, CBP said in response to a recent letter from the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (see 2002180046). CBP said it enforces the Section 301 duties issued by the USTR “based on CBP laws and regulations, including 19 CFR 146.65(a)(1), unless USTR directs CBP to take different actions pursuant to Section 301.” NAFTZ President Erik Autor said the association is reviewing its next steps.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 17-23:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 issued an order blocking Section 232 “derivatives” tariffs on a second importer. The preliminary injunction stops CBP from collecting the tariffs on Oman Fasteners, and also sets bond requirements similar to those found in another preliminary injunction CIT recently issued for another importer, PrimeSource (see 2002140040). CIT Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu, who is also judge in the PrimeSource case, issued the order.
A third importer has now requested a court order blocking collection of new Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives," and two others are not far behind. Huttig Building Products filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18 challenging the new tariffs, and a day later asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would bar imposition of the tariffs on entries from Huttig and its affiliate while the court considers the legal challenge. Astrotech Steels and Trinity Steel filed their own complaints on Feb. 20, though as of press time they had not yet asked the court to order a halt to the tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 10-16:
Ford Motor Company recently filed a Supreme Court appeal of a case involving tariff engineering of Ford transit vans to obtain a lower rate for passenger vehicles. The automaker’s Feb. 13 petition for certiorari says the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to end uncertainty for U.S. importers caused by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s “doctrinally incoherent and erroneous precedent,” and to rectify the CAFC’s errant decision not to address certain arguments made by Ford at a lower court.