The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 denied an application for a temporary restraining order against the liquidation of entries made by various companies represented by Grunfeld Desiderio seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Strato Technology Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00322).
As importers everywhere await the Supreme Court's final decision on the fate of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, more and more attorneys are counseling their clients to file preemptive lawsuits at the Court of International Trade to guarantee their right to a refund of the IEEPA tariffs.
The Supreme Court will most likely decide the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act after the high court went on its four-week holiday recess. The court held its last conference day of the year on Dec. 12 and won't reconvene until Jan. 9, when it will hold both a conference day and a non-argument session, according to the court's calendar.
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. agreed to liquidate hoverboards imported by 3BTech under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8711.60.000 and exclude the goods from Section 301 China tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.17. 3BTech and the U.S. filed a stipulated judgment in the importer's test case on the issue, which resolves the spat in favor of 3BTech (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
The United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement established a "double substantial transformation" test to qualify for preferential tr eatment under the FTA, the U.S. argued in a cross-motion for partial summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The controlling authority regarding the test is General Note 30 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and not, as importer JBF Bahrain has argued, the executive agreement between the two countries or a side letter on tariff classification, the U.S. said (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
The U.S. ambassador to the World Trade Organization published a blunt response to reform discussions, arguing that the underpinning of the WTO -- that all countries should receive the same tariff rate, unless there is a comprehensive free-trade agreement between them -- was naive, "and that era has passed."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: