The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 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).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The International Trade Commission inadequately supported its decision not to exclude Amsted Rail from the injury investigation on freight rail couplers (FRCs) from China and Mexico, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public on Oct. 20. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the ITC didn't articulate a "rational connection" between Amsted's domestic production performance and the decision not to exclude Amsted, nor did it properly support its conclusion that Amsted's exclusion would "skew the data."
The private parties challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply briefs at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20. The briefs centered their arguments on the text of IEEPA itself, arguing that the law, which only lets the president "regulate ... importation," categorically doesn't confer tariff power to the president. The companies also argued that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines compel the high court to strip President Donald Trump of the unfettered tariff power he claims under the statute (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Court of International Trade Chief Judge Mark Barnett on Oct. 16 restricted electronic access to sealed documents in light of a "recent escalation in cyberattacks on the CM/ECF systems of federal courts." While sealed documents will continue to be filed in the CM/ECF system under "existing procedures," non-court users no longer can access or view these documents "by electronic means," the court said.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer FCMT on Oct. 16 dismissed three cases it brought at the Court of International Trade on CBP's appraisal of its apparel entries. The company filed a trio of complaints in May claiming that CBP failed to use the products' transaction value to appraise the merchandise and that CBP engaged in an "arbitrary and fictitious appraisement" of the merchandise (see 2506020020). FCMT said CBP appraised the Chinese merchandise using an "unknown method of appraisement" and merely increased the value of the merchandise by 148% (FCMT v. United States, CIT #s 21-00242, -00243, -00247).
Crutchfield, a consumer electronics seller, filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 17 challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In the brief, the company highlighted the harms imposed on "American retailers" by the tariffs and argued that the "plain language" of IEEPA and the Constitution don't grant the president "unprecedented, unilateral, and unreviewable" tariff authority (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).