The Court of International Trade correctly found that importer Ildico’s watches didn't have cases made “wholly” of precious metals and that the importer was relying on too narrow a definition of "watch cases," the U.S. argued June 13 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Ildico Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1337).
The Court of International Trade on June 16 held that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial last year, Judge Stephen Vaden concluded that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110 as a pullover. Specifically, the item will now be classified under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%.
The two importers challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the District Court for the District of Columbia directly petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. The importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, represented by Akin Gump, said the question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs "will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve definitively." The companies said they can't wait for the normal appellate process to wrap up, even on an expedited basis, given the "tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims." The importers are only asking the high court to review whether IEEPA provides for tariffs and not any of its other challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariff action, noting that it's the only claim the government says courts have the power to review.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on June 13 granted importer Canadian Solar (USA)'s bid to voluntarily dismiss its case claiming CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after CIT struck down the first Donald Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Canadian Solar originally brought the suit in 2022 to claim that CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels after CIT found the revocation to be illegal (see 2210070084). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the trade court's decision after Canadian Solar filed suit, allowing the U.S. to reverse the tariff exemption and put the tariff back in place (see 2408130019) (Canadian Solar (USA) v. United States, CIT # 22-00295).
Importer Monarch Metals told the Court of International Trade that its stainless steel wire imports are products of Japan and not China, meaning its goods were improperly subjected to Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. In a complaint filed June 13, Monarch Metals said that under CBP's prior application of the substantial transformation test to steel wire, no substantial transformation occurs by drawing steel rod into steel wire (Monarch Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00266).
Plaintiffs in the case challenging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit proposed a briefing schedule that would end briefing on the same date as briefing is set to conclude in the IEEPA tariff case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. opposed the proposed schedule, urging the court to accept the schedule previously agreed to by the parties, which would end briefing on Aug. 8 (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The Council of the EU on June 12 imposed tariffs on agricultural products and fertilizers from Russia and Belarus that weren't subject to the additional customs duties thus far imposed on related products. The council said the goal is to "reduce EU dependence on those imports" and "reduce Russian export revenues" in a bid to limit Russia's ability to fund its war against Ukraine.
Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).
The U.S. and defendant-intervenors led by Archer Daniels Midland each argued June 10 that Loper Bright doesn’t impact the Commerce Department’s discretion in deciding to use a mandatory review respondent’s annual conversion costs and quarterly direct material costs (Citribel v. United States, CIT # 24-00010).