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 U.S. renewed a cross-motion for judgment June 6 regarding the classification of importer HyAxiom’s hydrogen fuel cell generator components, saying the importer’s product was “a multi-functional machine” classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8479. The government’s initial motion was dismissed by Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu in August 2024 (see 2408290019) (HyAxiom v. United States, CIT # 21-00057).
After a second remand by the Court of International Trade (see 2503110034), the Commerce Department said it analyzed five additional (k)(2) factors, as ordered, and as a result determined that exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles weren't actually covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).
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 parties contesting the government's emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Court of International Trade's ruling on the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs "mischaracterize" statements made by administration officials on the effect of the CIT's ruling, the U.S. said. Responding to claims from 12 U.S. states and a group of importers, the government argued that the trade court's injunction against the IEEPA tariffs is "legally untenable and risks irreparable economic and national-security harms" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
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 Court of International Trade on June 11 said CBP waited too long to demand payment on unpaid antidumping duties from surety company Aegis Security Insurance. Judge Jane Restani held both that CBP violated the implied condition of reasonableness in customs bonds in waiting eight years to demand payment and that the agency violated the six-year statute of limitations in which the government can demand payment. Restani became the third CIT judge to rule on the issue of whether CBP can demand payment from surety companies years after the underlying entry was liquidated, siding with one of her colleagues in finding that the statute of limitations runs from the date of liquidation and not the date CBP demands payment.
The government withdrew its emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 3 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs pending the government's appeal of the decision (see 2506030048). The U.S. said Judge Rudolph Contreras' decision staying his judgment "renders moot the government's motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal. The government is also seeking an emergency stay of the Court of International Trade's decision vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though CAFC has issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Mediation at the Court of International Trade in a customs penalty suit between the U.S. and importer Katana Racing resulted in a settlement of all issues, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reported on June 6 (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).