The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial held last year, Judge Stephen Vaden said, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for pullovers.

The importer seeking class certification at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act voluntarily dismissed its case June 16. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).

Importer Monarch Metals told the Court of International Trade that its stainless steel wire imports are products of Japan and not China, meaning its goods were improperly subjected to Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. In a complaint filed June 13, Monarch Metals said that under CBP's prior application of the substantial transformation test to steel wire, no substantial transformation occurs by drawing steel rod into steel wire (Monarch Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00266).

The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 2-8:

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls the government's emergency stay motion against a Court of International Trade decision permanently enjoining tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, five different groups of amici filed briefs at the appellate court either attacking or defending the trade court's ruling.

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).

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 importers challenging the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the importers will be irreparably harmed by the stay while the president "is not harmed by the denial of authority he does not legally possess" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 19-25 and May 26 - June 1: