The Trump administration on May 9 issued an executive order declaring that it will disfavor criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses in an effort to combat overregulation. Criminal customs enforcement likely won't be affected by the order, since the administration is placing a larger emphasis on trade enforcement and these cases arise out of statutes and not federal regulations, trade lawyers told us.
President Donald Trump last week signed an executive order aimed at reducing criminal enforcement of federal regulations, but it appears to carve out laws related to national security and defense.
CBP cannot unilaterally decide to reliquidate entries that were erroneously liquidated while subject to a suspension order from the Court of International Trade, the trade court held on May 8. Judge Gary Katzmann said an "enjoined party is not empowered to choose and implement the remedy for its own violations of an injunction," writing that that power is the court's alone.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 28 - May 4:
The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of March 17-23, March 23-30, March 31 - April 6, April 7-13, April 14-20 and April 21-27:
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. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
Labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates filed a lawsuit this week against Starbucks on behalf of eight individuals who were trafficked and forced to work on "Starbucks-controlled coffee plantations in Brazil." The complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks class certification for all trafficked laborers in Brazil and alleges that Starbucks knowingly benefitted from this slave labor, which took place on thousands of supplier plantations (John Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, D.D.C. # 25-01261).
The U.S. joined a case against importer Barco Uniforms, companies that supply Barco and the two individuals that control the suppliers for allegedly violating the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying customs duties on apparel imports, DOJ announced. The suit was originally filed in 2016 under the FCA's whistleblower provision by Toni Lee, the former director of product commercialization at Barco. The U.S. intervened in the case, filing a complaint on April 11.