The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Secretary's report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no imminence requirement in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the Secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute." Judge Timothy Dyk, author of the opinion, also ruled that the statute grants the president the discretion to set the nature and duration of the tariffs.
The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 granted the U.S.' motion to dismiss a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 7 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order granted Porsche Motorsports North America's motion to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking duty-free treatment of auto parts temporarily exported then reimported. The Court of International Trade previously denied Porsche this treatment, ruling that auto parts exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade" (see 2201030038). The trade court found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.
A week before U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai heads to Geneva for the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference, she said she's excited for what the meeting could bring, though she avoided predicting that either an intellectual property waiver for COVID-19 vaccines would be approved, or that the 20-year fisheries negotiations would be closed.
Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating are insulated for tariff schedule purposes, and should be classified under heading 8547 as insulating fittings for electrical machines, appliances or equipment, importer Shamrock Building Materials said in a motion for summary judgment filed June 6 at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order granted Porsche Motorsports North America'as motion to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit seeking duty-free treatment of auto parts temporarily exported then reimported. The Court of International Trade previously denied Porsche the treatment, ruling that auto parts exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade." The trade court found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.
Agricultural net wrap imported by RWW Klerks can only be used in harvesting machinery, and should be classified as a part of harvesting machinery of Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8433, rather than as liquidated by CBP in heading 6005 as a textile material, the importer said in a June 3 motion filed at the Court of International Trade (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-00001).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a May 25 opinion found that shipments from two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, do not qualify for an exception of the Jones Act. Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the shipments do not qualify for the Third Proviso of the Jones Act since they do not engage in transportation over a Canadian rail line.