The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, on April 4 dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its "hoverboards." The importer filed a complaint in February, alleging that dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed as hoverboards, are "children's cycles" and not "bicycles" (see 2502140057). The importer said the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty under secondary subheading 9903.88.02, as classified by CBP. John Peterson, counsel for GOTRAX, said the case will be refiled in a "week or so" due to a "minor jurisdictional glitch" (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).
Responding to a Court of International Trade request to discuss “the statutory scheme of who is eligible to apply for a separate rate,” wood moldings and millwork products exporters China Cornici and RaoPing said applicants shouldn’t need a suspended entry during the relevant review period (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).
Importer Honeywell pushed back April 4 against a U.S. motion for rehearing after the Court of International Trade sided with it to find its precut radial, chordial and web fabric pieces, used in airplane brakes, were “parts of an aircraft” rather than “fabrics” (see 2501300051). The trade court hadn't misapplied the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's General Rules of Interpretation, it said (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
The International Trade Commission filed a petition for writ of mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a recent Court of International Trade decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057) (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
The Court of International Trade's Pacer.gov system will undergo maintenance April 27 from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EDT, the court said. Users may have "intermittent issues" when logging onto CM/ECF and making payments through Pay.gov, the court said.
Importer Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade in its customs suit on the classification of its aluminum foil entries. The judgment said the goods are to be classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7607.20.50, which covers other backed aluminum foil. CBP initially classified the goods under subheading 3921.90.40, which covers flexible products with textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber. The product at issue is "20-micron aluminum foil, soft-temper, plain, bright side lacquer laminated to a 12-micron PET film" (Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 16-00200).
Importer Scioto Valley Woodworking opposed April 2 a Commerce Department finding on remand (see 2501310016) that it had evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of paper importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, on April 3 challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Simplified laid out three constitutional and statutory claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The U.S. pushed back April 2 against a petitioner’s motion -- with a defendant-intervenor exporter’s consent -- to stay a challenge to the countervailing duty order review of Indian-origin pneumatic off-the-road tires (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).