CIT Confirms US Position That Refunds for Brazil, India IEEPA Tariffs Available If SCOTUS Axes Duties
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 confirmed that the government's stipulation regarding the availability of refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "applies to all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs."
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.
The U.S. stipulated in one of the lead cases seeking IEEPA tariff refunds, AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, that the government will refund any IEEPA tariffs found to have been unlawfully collected in any IEEPA tariff case that substantially overlaps with the lead cases on the tariffs currently before the Supreme Court. However, in response to an inquiry from the court on whether that stipulation extends to tariffs on India and Brazil that aren't at issue in the Supreme Court cases, the U.S. said the "answer is yes."
At least one of the cases filed in anticipation of a decision from the high court striking down the IEEPA tariffs, brought by Popsockets, challenges the tariffs on India and Brazil in addition to the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico at issue before the Supreme Court. The addition of these duties in Popsockets' complaint prompted CIT Judges Timothy Reif, Gary Katzmann and Jane Restani to issue a letter asking the U.S. for clarification on how the addition of these tariffs affects the government's stipulation regarding the availability of IEEPA tariff refunds.
The U.S. said that while it reserves the right to "challenge specific complaints," a properly raised case would "generally" be "subject to the stipulation, regardless of whether the specific Executive Order challenged was at issue in V.O.S. or AGS." The point of the stipulation "was merely to confirm that defendants do not intend to challenge the Court’s authority to order reliquidation and thus obviate the need for preliminary injunctions," the government's response said.
In a text-only order confirming the government's response, the trade court also denied the government's request to stay all pending cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs using a "new procedure" requested by the U.S. The government had asked for the court to continue its stay in "all pending cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs, including all assigned cases," and to "approve a steering committee consisting of several lead counsel for the plaintiffs," as the court allowed in the Section 301 litigation.
Reif, Katzmann and Restani denied the request and said all new IEEPA tariff cases "will continue to be stayed under the process" recently established by the court that automatically stays any new IEEPA cases being filed and stayed all unassigned IEEPA tariff cases (see 2512230071).
The government also asked the court not to require the U.S. to file entries of appearance in each individual case or to file copies of documents in each individual case. The U.S. instead asked the court to "create a tab on its website so that all parties and their counsel can have notice of any case management submission or filing in AGS and that all filings be made in AGS." The court also denied this request.
When the Supreme Court will issue its decision in the lead cases on the issue is unknown. The court most recently issued decisions on Jan. 14, though it has yet to announce its next opinion release day.