The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).
The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision vacating all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the government's appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service merely said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 2-8:
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.
Trade enforcement under President Donald Trump could "look a little different" than how the federal government has previously acted because of how the DOJ seems now to want to focus on holding individuals accountable, as opposed to corporations, according to a trade lawyer speaking during a June 6 webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Export Center.
The U.S. disagreed May 30 with an importer’s claim that the Commerce Department’s post-remand scope ruling on wood mouldings and millwork products expanded relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to cover “an infinite universe of products.” The orders are simply intentionally broad, it said (Hardware Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00150).
The Court of International Trade denied the U.S. motion to stay proceedings in a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products. Detroit Axle, the importer challenging the government, then filed an emergency motion requesting the dates ordered by CIT be moved earlier to "preserve Detroit Axle’s ability to obtain meaningful relief" (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).