The Court of International Trade committed "clear error" in classifying Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 without performing a GRI 2(a) analysis, the U.S. argued. Defending its bid for a rehearing before the trade court, the government said Honeywell's claim that there's no "significant flaw" in the CIT's decision ignores the fact that the court at no point found the brake segments to be a "finished part" (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida set a May 12 deadline for parties to file amicus briefs in a case brought by importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, against President Donald Trump's tariffs on China imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the company opened its lawsuit, the U.S. moved to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (see 2504150022). So far in the case, only one amicus brief has been filed, and it came from the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation, which sought to defend the government's bid to transfer the case (see 2504160047) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, defended Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission in one of his decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an April 28 brief, Dhuey argued that 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(2)(B) explicitly gave Vaden discretion to disclose the contested materials (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).

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

Importer Snap One, doing business as SnapAV or Control 4, voluntarily dismissed two customs suits at the Court of International Trade on April 28. The company brought the cases to contest CBP's classification of its network management controllers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8537.10.9170, dutiable at 2.7%, arguing that instead the goods fit under subheading 8517.62.0090, free of general and Section 301 duties. Counsel for Snap One didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Snap One v. United States, CIT #s 23-00078, -00079).

CBP unlawfully detained 11 shipments of honey from importer Tri State Honey and held the entries for "nearly a year without explanation or justification," the importer argued in an April 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, Tri State Honey said CBP violated its "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).

The U.S. District Court for the District Columbia set a hearing for May 27 to hear two children's educational materials producers' motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a text-only order, Judge Rudolph Contreras set the hearing to take place at 3 p.m. EDT both on the preliminary injunction bid and the U.S. government's motion to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

In a complaint brought April 28, importer Chamberlain Group said CBP wrongly found its entryway intercom and camera systems had originated from China, not Mexico (Chamberlain Group v. United States, CIT # 24-00198).

Two Illinois producers of children’s educational materials challenged April 22 President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, adding their complaint to a growing pile making similar claims (see 2504250038, 2504140061 and 2504230067). They, like other challengers, are seeking a preliminary injunction, saying that their businesses are already suffering irreparable harm as a result of the tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems brought two more classification disputes to the Court of International Trade April 28 (see 2504010067 and 2305170023 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00199).