The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 denied Miller & Chevalier's motion for a limited lifting of the stay imposed by the trade court in a handful of new cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
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."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. argued on Jan. 12 that the "undisputed facts" show that importer Lanxess' polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to speed up the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- can't accelerate a chemical reaction "in its condition as imported," thus removing it from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3915 as a "reaction accelerator" (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Law firm Miller & Chevalier asked the Court of International Trade to partially lift the stay ordered in a handful of cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to let certain importers file a motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend liquidation of certain entries for which the importers have paid IEEPA tariffs.
The U.S. either "concedes, does not dispute, or misses the point of, [importer Cozy Comfort's] key arguments" in the importer's appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a pullover and not a blanket, Cozy argued in a Jan. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).