The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Briggs & Stratton on June 26 voluntarily dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade, which was brought to contest CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer argued that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015). Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).

Defending against a motion to dismiss its Section 1581(i) case challenging the Commerce Department’s refusal to open a changed circumstances review, wood mouldings and millwork importer Houston Shutters said that precedent actually supports its case (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).

Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Cozy Comfort will appeal the Court of International Trade's recent ruling finding that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket (see 2506170063). After conducting a five-day bench trial in the case, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden held that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for "pullovers." The judge specifically said the item fits under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%. The importer now will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

Importer Crutchfield filed an amicus brief on June 26 in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Crutchfield argued that President Donald Trump's claim that IEEPA grants the president "unilateral and unreviewable authority to impose, increase, decrease, suspend, or alter tariffs on virtually every country in the world" can't be squared with the statute's plain language and the U.S. Constitution (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The U.S. again said June 23 that an importer’s mastectomy brassieres should be classified as brassieres, not medical accessories (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importers Wego and Galleher either waived or forfeited any arguments they may have against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this month, the government said the importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain Commerce's remand results in which it calculated the separate rate, waiving any claims against the remand results (Galleher Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).