A Texas-based industrial equipment supplier and its former CEO were fined millions of dollars for intentionally violating sanctions and export control laws, but the U.S. declined to prosecute its parent company after the firm voluntarily disclosed the violations and cooperated closely with DOJ’s investigation.
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The importer seeking class certification at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act voluntarily dismissed its case June 16. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
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, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial held last year, Judge Stephen Vaden said, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for pullovers.
Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of 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" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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 16 denied importer Detroit Axle's request that the trade court reconsider its briefing schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for goods from China. As a result, the U.S. reply to the PI motion is due June 20 and the importer's reply is due on July 7 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
Plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff suit currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit filed an additional brief in support of their bid to tie the briefing schedule to the briefing schedule of the IEEPA tariff suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
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).