Brian Feito

A third importer has now requested a court order blocking collection of new Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives," and two others are not far behind. Huttig Building Products filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18 challenging the new tariffs, and a day later asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would bar imposition of the tariffs on entries from Huttig and its affiliate while the court considers the legal challenge. Astrotech Steels and Trinity Steel filed their own complaints on Feb. 20, though as of press time they had not yet asked the court to order a halt to the tariffs.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 10-16:

The International Trade Commission recently issued two new revisions to the 2019 Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Changes include new and amended exclusions from Section 301 tariffs from China, as well as a decrease in tariffs for goods on list 4A. The ITC also implemented new Section 232 tariffs on some finished goods of steel and aluminum that took effect Feb. 8, as well as a shift to a quarterly tariff-rate quota for imports of large residential washers subject to Section 201 safeguard duties.

The Commerce Department is setting new certification requirements, and will order suspension of liquidation and collection of antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits for some, on entries of corrosion-resistant steel products from corrosion-resistant steel products from Costa Rica, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, after preliminarily finding imports from the three countries are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China (A-570-026/C-570-027) and, in the case of Malaysian imports, also Taiwan (A-583-856).

CBP and the trade community again face difficult decisions on how to move forward with mandatory continuing education for customs brokers. The toughest may be how to create a fair accreditation scheme, but that’s just one of many open questions as a joint task force again attempts to find some resolution of issues that caused continuing education to fall off CBP’s agenda nearly a half-decade ago.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 3-9:

A California state appeals court on Feb. 4 found a customs brokerage can’t enforce a noncompete agreement against its former employee. Hecny Brokerage’s agreement with its longtime employee Madeline Sopko was too broad too meet California’s strict limits on noncompete clauses, and Sopko’s national permit and work with clients nationwide made it too difficult to narrow the noncompete’s geographical scope to fit California’s strict requirements, the court said.

New Section 232 tariffs on finished products of steel and aluminum face a court challenge just before they’re set to take effect. PrimeSource, a Texas company that bills itself “one of the largest purveyors of fasteners in the world,” says the tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives” violate the statutory requirements of Section 232 and importers’ constitutional rights.

An HIV drug imported by Janssen Ortho is duty-free under the Pharmaceutical Appendix to the tariff schedule, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 6 decision. CBP had collected about $100 million in duties on the medication in recent years, but CIT found the agency should have allowed it in free under Special Program Indicator “K,” despite the drug’s Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number being unlisted in the appendix.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 27 - Feb. 2: