CBP will pay refunds of Section 301 duties paid on importer CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing's aluminum road wheels, the importer and the U.S. said in a stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 30. The judgment said CITIC Dicastal's wheels were subject to an exclusion from a 10% Section 301 duty the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for wheels imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.4545, which provides for aluminum wheels for motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 (CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00159).
The Court of International Trade committed "clear error" in classifying Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 without performing a GRI 2(a) analysis, the U.S. argued. Defending its bid for a rehearing before the trade court, the government said Honeywell's claim that there's no "significant flaw" in the CIT's decision ignores the fact that the court at no point found the brake segments to be a "finished part" (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida set a May 12 deadline for parties to file amicus briefs in a case brought by importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, against President Donald Trump's tariffs on China imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the company opened its lawsuit, the U.S. moved to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (see 2504150022). So far in the case, only one amicus brief has been filed, and it came from the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation, which sought to defend the government's bid to transfer the case (see 2504160047) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, defended Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission in one of his decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an April 28 brief, Dhuey argued that 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(2)(B) explicitly gave Vaden discretion to disclose the contested materials (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Snap One, doing business as SnapAV or Control 4, voluntarily dismissed two customs suits at the Court of International Trade on April 28. The company brought the cases to contest CBP's classification of its network management controllers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8537.10.9170, dutiable at 2.7%, arguing that instead the goods fit under subheading 8517.62.0090, free of general and Section 301 duties. Counsel for Snap One didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Snap One v. United States, CIT #s 23-00078, -00079).
CBP unlawfully detained 11 shipments of honey from importer Tri State Honey and held the entries for "nearly a year without explanation or justification," the importer argued in an April 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, Tri State Honey said CBP violated its "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).
The U.S. District Court for the District Columbia set a hearing for May 27 to hear two children's educational materials producers' motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a text-only order, Judge Rudolph Contreras set the hearing to take place at 3 p.m. EDT both on the preliminary injunction bid and the U.S. government's motion to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421, not “other” catalytic reactors under 3815, the Court of International Trade ruled April 29.