Plaintiffs in the primary case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the Supreme Court on Sept. 5 that they consent to the high court's review of the case. Responding to the government's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against many of the tariffs, the plaintiffs, consisting of five importers, said Supreme Court review is "essential," and the court's "final word is needed urgently" in light of the harm wrought by the tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
The Supreme Court may be willing to adopt certain arguments made by the dissenting judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us. Specifically, certain justices may be willing to adopt Judge Richard Taranto's discussion of the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine, though others were more skeptical about how much tariff authority the court is willing to cede to the president under IEEPA and these two doctrines.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Sept. 2 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 International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).
Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).
The U.S. on Sept. 3 asked the Supreme Court to review the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently moving the court for expedited consideration of its petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition be granted, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked that the court expedite the briefing schedule as well, which would conclude with oral argument held the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Aug. 25 and Aug. 27 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):