The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" and not as "food preparations." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark overruled the Court of International Trade's decision, which came to the opposite conclusion, finding that Nutricia's products are properly found to be medicaments under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3004.50.5040.
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2 and Nov. 3-9:
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 may be a more limited "fall-back option" for the Trump administration should the Supreme Court strike down all the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Dr. Mona Paulsen, law professor at the London School of Economic Law School, wrote in a blog post.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 4 granted importer Camel Energy's motion to expedite its case against CBP's detention of two of its battery entries. Judge Claire Kelly, who was assigned to the case on Oct. 29, granted the motion to expedite and said that Camel Energy "may file a proposed briefing schedule" along with a "brief statement of reasons as to why this expedited timeframe is necessary" by Nov. 5 at 4 p.m. ET (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).
Two Trump appointees, along with the three liberal justices, had sharp questions for the Trump administration's advocate as the Supreme Court held a nearly three-hour hearing on the constitutionality of tariffs imposed around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Importer Topcon Positioning Systems on Nov. 3 told the Court of International Trade that its "laser levels" are "surveying instruments," properly classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9015.30.4000, which provides for "levels" used for "surveying." In a motion for summary judgment, Topcon also argued that its accessories are, "in turn," classified under duty-free subheading 9015.90.0030, which covers accessories of surveying instruments (Topcon Positioning Systems v. United States, CIT # 14-00189).
CBP erroneously found that importer Superon Schweisstechnik's stainless steel round wires aren't coated in a "flux material" and thus misclassified three types of the wires, Superon argued in an Oct. 30 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. The importer faulted CBP for using the "conventional test methods" on the wires' coating, "rather than the globally recognized specialized methods necessary for identifying" the type of coating on the wires (Superon Schweisstechnik India v. United States, CIT # 21-00570).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 13-19 and 20-26: