The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, who was sitting by designation, said the tariffs were a valid exercise of the government's authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C), which lets the U.S. Trade Representative "modify or terminate any action" taken under Section 301, where such action is "no longer appropriate."
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. 17 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):
In the Sept. 17 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 59, No. 38), CBP published proposals to modify and revoke ruling letters concerning the country of origin for an e-scooter and tariff classifications of shrimp spring rolls and breaded shrimp.
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.
Four amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court on Sept. 23 in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The briefs focused on various elements of the case, though they all argued that the nondelegation doctrine shouldn't be used to strip the president of his tariff authority here, since the court has long upheld broad delegations of authority to the president in the realms of foreign affairs and national defense (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 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 U.S. asked the Supreme Court for permission to use an additional 3,000 words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said a total of 9,000 words is needed given that the government will have to address "three separate response briefs, with an additional jurisdictional issue, on a highly expedited schedule" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Corey Biazzo, a Charlotte-based civil litigation attorney, filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court on Sept. 21 in opposition to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Biazzo's submission is the first amicus brief filed in the case on the merits and argues that President Donald Trump's claimed tariff authority violates separation of powers principles (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 declined to reconsider its customs case finding importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are classified as "extract of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603. While the government said the court ignored that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids, Judge Joseph Laroski said he explicitly considered both arguments.