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).
Georgetown University law professor Jennifer Hillman said that while she expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take months to decide if the tariff actions under emergency powers weren't legal, the court might not stay the vacation of the orders during that time.
President Donald Trump said at a press conference in the Oval Office that the U.S. would no longer have an economically viable country if higher courts uphold the rulings from the Court of International Trade and a U.S. district court that he doesn't have unbounded power to hike tariffs under an emergency statute.
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).
CBP is extending a tariff exemption for goods that are in-transit to reflect the May 28 Court of International Trade judgment vacating President Donald Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico (see 2505280067). "CBP’s updated guidance is that it is generally not realistic for shipments to qualify for the in-transit exceptions if entry is not made prior to June 16, 2025," it said May 30. CBP previously said the in-transit exemptions would end May 28.
CBP is extending a tariff exemption for goods that are in-transit to reflect the May 28 Court of International Trade judgment vacating President Donald Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. "CBP’s updated guidance is that it is generally not realistic for shipments to qualify for the in-transit exceptions if entry is not made prior to June 16, 2025," it said May 30. CBP previously said the in-transit exceptions would end May 28.
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).
CBP has released its May 28 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 59, No. 22). It contains one proposed ruling action, related to the tariff classification of molybdenum disulphide powder. It also includes one Court of International Trade slip opinion.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 29. A day after the Court of International Trade vacated and permanently enjoined all the tariff executive orders issued under IEEPA by President Donald Trump, the D.C. court went a step further and categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't include the power to impose tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-1248).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all trade action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency stay motion of the trade court's ruling. Yesterday, the trade court vacated all of Trump's executive orders imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. The U.S. immediately filled for a stay of the decision at CIT and the Federal Circuit, arguing that such a ruling would "hamstring" U.S. foreign policy.