It's unclear if the Court of International Trade has the authority to order reliquidation on imports to "increase duties to the detriment of importers," the Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a post-argument brief at the Court of International Trade. SEIA said the trade court should look "skeptically" on the government's request seeking such liquidation, and "require a compelling case based on the equities for granting such relief" (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT # 20-03941).
Importer Outokumpu Stainless Steel brought a Feb. 20 complaint to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP had wrongly failed to correct the country of origin designated on 173 of its entries, resulting in the importer being assessed Section 232 tariffs (Outokumpu Stainless USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00047).
Steel importer Seneca Foods Corp. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 to overturn the Commerce Department's rejection of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, claiming its approach to exclusion requests "sought to ensure that the President's aims" in imposing the tariffs "would be fully realized." Seneca said the fact that U.S. Steel Corp., which objected to Seneca's requests, "declined to supply the very same volumes for which Seneca sought exclusions should be dispositive" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Target General Merchandise said in a Feb. 20 response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification case that it no longer will be disputing CBP’s classification of its artificial Christmas trees, explaining that the government is already arguing that the trees should be classified under a duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas asked leave Feb. 18 from the Court of International Trade to file a short sur-reply to the U.S.’s support of a cross-motion for judgment (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
President Donald Trump's directive in his proclamation expanding Section 232 steel tariffs to assess penalties for the misclassification of entries resulting in non-payment of the duties without regard for "evidence of mitigating factors" may run afoul of existing customs laws, trade lawyers said. Even if the directive stays within the bounds of the current statutory scheme, expect more prior disclosures and proactive steps to ensure the proper customs treatment of steel entries, the lawyers added.