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).
Joshua Kurland, senior trial counsel at DOJ, said on LinkedIn that he's leaving the department after working as a trial attorney for nearly 16 years. Kurland has worked as senior trial counsel since 2009, representing the government at litigation on "international trade, appeals, Government contracts, and administrative law disputes."
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
The Commerce Department is asking for public comments on its proposals to revise the current policy of assessing entries of unaffiliated resellers at the all-others antidumping duty rate and to eliminate expedited countervailing duty reviews. Comments are due by July 7.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 19-25 and May 26 - June 1:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, pending the government's appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Rudolph Contreras 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" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2 said the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction via Section 1581(i) to hear California's challenge to all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 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, 19 U.S.C. 3004, says the HTS includes modifications made by the president (State of California v. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
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).
Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).