The Israeli government moved for judgment May 9 in the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the International Trade Commission’s final injury determinations regarding brass rod antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The commission failed to consider the impact of Israel’s conflict with the terrorist group Hamas on Israel’s sole brass rod manufacturer, it said (Government of Israel v. United States, CIT # 24-00197).
Aegis Security, a customs broker involved in two U.S.-brought suits to collect duties that have gone unpaid for decades (see 2503030043 and 2504180051), moved May 8 for a more definite complaint in one. In the more recent complaint filed this year, Aegis said the government failed to provide an adequately detailed explanation of the facts behind its claim (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 25-00051).
The libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation opposed the government's bid to stay its case at the Court of International Trade challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently filing a motion for summary judgment and expedited consideration of its case (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a supplemental brief in their lawsuit against all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the states said the Court of International Trade should enjoin enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs, set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs and declare the IEEPA tariffs "unlawful" (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
The Court of International Trade on May 15 held that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court rulings distinguishes "importation" and "entry." The judge added that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided the five-year period to make a drawback claim runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. As a result, the court dismissed importer King Maker Marketing's case challenging CBP's rejection of its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims for being untimely.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A number of importers self-describing as “small businesses in various fields” and led by Princess Awesome, a girls’ clothing seller, added a third amicus curiae brief to the growing number opposing President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs (see 2505120057 and 2504240028). They said they filed to “emphasize the irreparable harm caused by the President’s arbitrary and ever-changing tariff policy” (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
Importer Amoena argued May 9 again that their mastectomy brassieres should have been classified as medical accessories, not “other” brassieres, saying that “a straightforward ‘visual review’” of the products wasn’t enough on its own to classify them. It also asked the trade court to accept certain apparently unaddressed facts on the record (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).