The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA filed a motion for judgment June 5 after a host of its other claims against the U.S. were dismissed in January (see 2501220064). It said that the Commerce Department wrongly rejected two of its Section 232 exclusion requests by claiming an authority based on national security that it didn’t actually have and two more by treating prospective presidential proclamations as retrospective (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade decision vacating all International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff action likely doesn't signal a win for either side on the merits of the issue, various attorneys told us. In addition, the court's move to set a July 31 oral argument date and have all active judges hear the case indicates a decision will likely be issued in August, the attorneys said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).
The U.S. renewed a cross-motion for judgment June 6 regarding the classification of importer HyAxiom’s hydrogen fuel cell generator components, saying the importer’s product was “a multi-functional machine” classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8479. The government’s initial motion was dismissed by Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu in August 2024 (see 2408290019) (HyAxiom v. United States, CIT # 21-00057).
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.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.
The parties contesting the government's emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Court of International Trade's ruling on the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs "mischaracterize" statements made by administration officials on the effect of the CIT's ruling, the U.S. said. Responding to claims from 12 U.S. states and a group of importers, the government argued that the trade court's injunction against the IEEPA tariffs is "legally untenable and risks irreparable economic and national-security harms" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision vacating all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the government's appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service merely said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).