The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 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 12 U.S. states challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply brief at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20, arguing that the text of IEEPA doesn't allow for any tariffs to be imposed and that Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs to combat the flow of fentanyl don't meet the statute's other requirements (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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. District Court for the District of Columbia on Oct. 17 rejected both the government’s and law firm Husch Blackwell’s motions for judgment in a Freedom of Information Act dispute involving the Entity List. It gave the Commerce Department time to provide adequate justifications for its decisions to withhold certain information but said the ones it already provided weren’t enough (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 24-2733.
The private parties challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed their reply briefs at the Supreme Court on Oct. 20. The briefs centered their arguments on the text of IEEPA itself, arguing that the law, which only lets the president "regulate ... importation," categorically doesn't confer tariff power to the president. The companies also argued that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines compel the high court to strip President Donald Trump of the unfettered tariff power he claims under the statute (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Maura Rezendes, former head of the sanctions team at A&O Shearman, has joined Sidley as a partner in the global arbitration, trade and advocacy practice, the firm announced last week. Rezendes' practice centers on "regulatory compliance advice and counseling, transactional support, investigations and enforcement" of economic sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Importer Veregy Central argued that CBP improperly assessed hefty antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell imports from Thailand and Vietnam. In a complaint filed with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 17, Veregy said its goods were properly excluded from these duties due to President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells and modules from Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia, since its imports were within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and were consumed in the U.S. within 24 months of Biden's proclamation announcing the duty pause (Veregy Central v. United States, CIT # 25-00229).
Three different solar cell and module exporters recently filed their opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of cases on the Commerce Department's findings that the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells and modules are being circumvented through Thailand and Cambodia (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1940) (BYD (H.K.) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1937).
The Commerce Department properly decided not to treat accrued interest on unpaid antidumping duties as an indirect selling expense for AD respondent Koehler Paper in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on thermal paper from Germany, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 10. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce reasonably found the interest on the duties to not fall under the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense, permissibly including the interest in the cost of producing the subject thermal paper.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: