The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

If de minimis ends for all imports in July 2027, as proposed in the tax bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Treasury would collect an additional $5.2 billion in the first full fiscal year after the change, mostly in tariffs, but including $231 million in customs user fees.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 12-18:

The American Association of Port Authorities, which represents 80 U.S. ports, told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that adding a 100% tariff to ship-to-shore cranes made by Chinese companies or with Chinese components will increase costs for its members without creating domestic manufacturing.

One hundred forty-eight members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus curiae brief May 16 saying the International Emergency Economic Powers Act wasn't intended to grant the president the power to levy tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

Five senators, both Republicans and Democrats, asked Jamieson Greer, then the U.S. trade representative nominee, to advocate for a formal exclusion process to tariffs, as was done for the Section 301 tariffs in Trump's first term. These written exchanges were recently posted at the Senate Finance Committee website, long after Greer's confirmation vote.

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 29 - May 7 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 U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).