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

The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision finding that CBP isn't entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never actually travel to the U.S. (see 2503180018). The trade court sided with Southwest Airlines in the spat, finding that the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 58c(a), doesn't allow CBP to collect the fees where the customer doesn't travel to the U.S. and no customs inspection services are performed. The court also said CBP's guidance letters requiring airlines to pay the fees, when collected by the passenger but the passenger doesn't fly, can't usurp the agency's lack of an interest in the fees, according to the statute (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

The Court of International Trade on May 14 granted the government's bid for a voluntary remand in exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider Jiaxing Hoshine's original petition to revoke or modify the WRO and allow the exporter to submit additional evidence to the record (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pushed forward, in a text-ony order, its hearing on whether to transfer the state of California's case against all tariff action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The hearing will now take place on May 27 at 1:30 p.m. EST (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The Court of International Trade assigned the third major challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the same three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif. The case at issue, brought on behalf of 11 importers by libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation, was brought to challenge President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed on China for the fentanyl emergency (see 2504250038). The suit will now be heard by the same three judges hearing lawsuits against the IEEPA tariffs brought by another libertarian group and 12 U.S. states (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

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

Importer Spector & Co. asked the Court of International Trade for relief from an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. The trade court dismissed the case, which is challenging CBP's classification of Spector's notebooks under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.60, since the suit was added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (see 2505050001) (Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).

The U.S. on May 12 opposed four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid for an injunction against tariffs imposed on Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's resolution of the tribal members' appeal of a Montana district court's order transferring the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).