DOJ's criminal division has identified trade fraud as a top priority, assigning its market integrity and major frauds unit to handle tariff evasion cases, a DOJ official confirmed to us. The official said that the major frauds unit is shifting resources to trade and looking to cases involving "long-running frauds, senior executives, and large volumes of alleged losses from unlawful tariff evasion schemes."

The Court of International Trade on July 10 heard oral argument in importer Detroit Axle's case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani pressed counsel for both the U.S. and the importer on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to take such action, given the specific language at play in both IEEPA and 19 U.S.C. 1321, the de minimis statute (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit fielded a total of 20 amicus briefs regarding the lawsuit against the tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 18 of which supported the importers and U.S. states challenging the tariffs. The amicus briefs came from 191 current members of Congress, various business interests, former government officials, advocacy groups and economists (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 week of June 30 - July 6:

Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's recent ruling in a trade-related False Claims Act case likely will create more customs fraud enforcement led by private parties and should lead importers to be extra wary that they are complying with U.S. trade laws, various laws firms said. The case is Island Industries v. Sigma Corp. (9th Cir. # 22-55063).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 23-29:

CBP unlawfully excluded importer Agri Spray Drones' entries of drone controllers without explanation, the importer argued in a June 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Agri Spray Drones v. United States, CIT # 25-00141).

The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).