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.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in the massive litigation on the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. The importers who challenged the tariffs didn't file an appeal of the matter to the Supreme Court prior to the issuance of the mandate. Last month, the court upheld the tariffs, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C) (see 2509250028). The court said the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: