US Asks CIT to Stay Remaining Active IEEPA Refund Cases
The government moved to stay various cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the court's resolution of the government's "motion for extended case management procedures" filed in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, one of the lead cases on refunds.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Hundreds of companies have flocked to the Court of International Trade in anticipation of a decision from the Supreme Court striking down the IEEPA tariffs.
Many of these plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of their entries to secure their right to a refund, though the trade court, in the AGS case, said it would deny such preemptive relief (see 2512150029). In the AGS decision, the court said it has the authority to order refunds even of finally liquidated entries in Section 1581(i) cases, noting that the government isn't contesting the court's ability to order refunds and that the U.S. is barred from changing its position in the future.
The U.S. is now looking to stay many of the other IEEPA tariff cases pending establishment of case management procedures in the AGS action. While the trade court adopted an administrative order staying all new and unassigned IEEPA tariff cases pending resolution of the Supreme Court cases on the tariffs, the court didn't stay a "handful of already-assigned cases" in which "motions for preliminary injunction have been filed," the U.S. noted.
The government argued that given its stipulation in the AGS case that the U.S. won't contest the government's ability to order reliquidation and that this stipulation will "apply to all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs," it "makes sense to stay defendants’ response in this case until the Court rules on our motion for extended case management procedures," the brief said.
If the court "imposes defendants’ stipulation in all IEEPA tariff cases, plaintiffs can either withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction or the Court could deny the motion as moot," the brief said. Either way, a stay "preserves Court and party resources as management procedures take hold."