The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on April 4 and May 13 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):
Importer FCMT filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade last week challenging CBP's appraisement of its apparel entries. In all three cases, the importer argued that CBP failed to use the products' transaction value to appraise the merchandise and that CBP engaged in an "arbitrary and fictitious appraisement" of the merchandise (FCMT v. United States, CIT #s 21-00242, -00243, -00247).
Georgetown University law professor Jennifer Hillman said that while she expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take months to decide if the tariff actions under emergency powers weren't legal, the court might not stay the vacation of the orders during that time.
The U.S. and Detroit Axle, an importer challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products, sparred at the Court of International Trade on whether to stay the company's case in light of the trade court's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The District Court for Northern California on June 3 dismissed California's challenge to tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs are laws of the U.S. for purposes of Section 1581(i), since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the law implementing the HTS, Section 3004, says presidential action modifying the HTS is part of the HTS. Scott then dismissed the case instead of transferring, per California's request, to let the state appeal the decision.
The U.S. on June 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the D.C. district court's decision last week finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority (see 2505290037). The government said that while the district court's preliminary injunction only extends to the plaintiffs, two small importers, the ruling undermines the president's ability to negotiate trade deals and wield broader diplomatic power (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority and declaring that all tariff action taken under IEEPA is illegal. Judge Rudolph Contreras suspended his preliminary injunction on the collection of the tariffs from the plaintiffs, two small importers, as well as the "accompanying memorandum opinion," which said IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs. The ruling is stayed pending the government's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision from April 29 on the classification of the company's catalyst blocks, according to a notice of appeal. The trade court said the catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and not as "other" catalytic reactors under heading 3815 (see 2504300067). Mitsubishi had requested Section 301 exclusions for its products but the importer failed to specify a particular HTS heading for the exclusion. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion that would apply to the products didn't actually cover Mitsubishi's goods, but even if had, the exclusion was drafted to cover products under heading 3815, the court said (Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00573).