The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A group of five small importers filed their opposition to the U.S. government's motion to transfer their case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The importers, led by Simplified, argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case because IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on May 2 dismissed three customs cases for lack of prosecution. All three were added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Flow Control v. U.S., CIT # 21-00201; Safran Electronics and Defense v. U.S., CIT # 23-00086; Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
The Commerce Department appropriately focused on the current availability of domestic steel as opposed to the availability at the time an importer placed a foreign order when considering Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said the focus on current availability is in line with the "purpose of the Section 232 import measures," which are meant to "increase and improve domestic capacity over time" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lacks authority to review a Montana court's order transferring a case from four Blackfeet Nation tribe members against various trade actions taken by President Donald Trump to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. argued on May 1. Moving the court to dismiss the case, the government said the appellate court "reviews final orders, but an order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for litigation to continue in another court is necessarily not final" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on April 29 told the 12 states challenging President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act they may file a brief laying out their position on a group of five importers' motion for summary judgment against Trump's reciprocal tariffs by May 8. The court said in a text-only order that the brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, doesn't bar the states from filing their own motion at a later date, nor will the brief be construed as a "waiver or forfeiture of any claim or argument."