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 end of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed over fentanyl smuggling from China, Canada and Mexico is on hold until an appellate court decides if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal for those purposes.
The District Court for the District of Columbia struck down all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act a day after the Court of International Trade did the same. However, Judge Rudolph Contreras went farther than the trade court, holding on May 29 that IEEPA categorically doesn't include the power to impose tariffs.
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.
CBP wasn't required to make a scope referral to the Commerce Department in its antidumping duty evasion case against importer Vanguard Trading Co., since CBP properly exercised its authority in determining that Vanguard's products were under the scope of the relevant AD order, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public May 27.