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.
The Court of International Trade denied a group of importers' motion for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of their entries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on the basis that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of the entries if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the trade court's previous decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Although Judge Timothy Reif said he made a mistake of fact in the initial decision, the mistake was a "harmless error," and that no mistake of law was made.
The U.S. on Dec. 11 filed its opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction in dozens of cases filed by Crowell & Moring seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00255).
As lawsuits seeking refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs at the Court of International Trade continue to mount, lawyers remain uncertain of the refund process that would be followed should the Supreme Court strike down the tariffs, including whether refunds will come via judicial or administrative pathways.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Dec. 5 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
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.