The U.S. Court of International Trade has limited the scope of a case brought by Voith US Inc. against the United States to just six protests regarding the classification of imported goods. This decision affects how Voith, a company that imports specialized manufacturing equipment, can pursue its claims against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) over tariff classifications. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal disputes involving customs and tariffs.
The case, Voith US Inc. v. United States, was filed under docket number 24-00029 and was decided by Judge Timothy C. Stanceu on October 19, 2026. Voith argued that CBP incorrectly classified its imported “QualiFlex press sleeves,” which are used in papermaking machinery, under a higher tariff rate than it believed was warranted. The court's ruling now limits Voith's claims to six specific protests that had been denied prior to the commencement of the action.
The dispute began when Voith filed a total of 36 protests regarding the tariff classification of its imported goods. These protests were filed between March and August 2023, with the company claiming that CBP had misclassified the QualiFlex press sleeves under subheading 3926.90.9985 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Voith argued that the correct classification should be subheading 8439.99.1000, which would result in lower tariffs.
Voith's legal team, led by Gregory Husisian from Foley & Lardner LLP, filed the complaint on February 3, 2026. The U.S. Department of Justice represented the government, with Senior Trial Counsel Alexander J. Vanderweide leading the defense. The case reached the court after Voith's protests were not resolved satisfactorily, prompting the company to seek judicial review.
In the ruling, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over 30 of the protests listed in Voith's summons because they were still pending at the time the action was filed. Judge Stanceu stated, "The uncontested fact that the 30 protests were still pending as of the filing of the Summons requires the court to dismiss this action as to those 30 protests and the underlying entries." This ruling emphasizes the requirement that a protest must be denied before a legal action can be initiated in the Court of International Trade.
Additionally, the court dismissed two protests that were included in the complaint but not listed in the summons, further narrowing the case. The ruling means that Voith can only pursue claims related to the six protests that had already been denied by CBP.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Voith and other importers. It highlights the procedural intricacies involved in contesting customs decisions and reinforces the necessity for importers to ensure that all protests are resolved before seeking judicial review. This decision may also serve as a cautionary tale for other businesses navigating similar disputes with CBP, as they must adhere strictly to jurisdictional requirements.
Looking ahead, Voith may still pursue its claims related to the six protests that remain. However, the dismissal of the other protests could limit the company's ability to seek comprehensive relief for its tariff classification issues. The court has allowed the defendant 60 days to file an answer to the complaint regarding the remaining protests, and the parties are expected to submit a proposed scheduling order to govern the litigation's next steps.
As for potential appeals, the court's ruling could be appealed, but the focus will likely remain on the six protests that are now the sole basis for Voith's claims. Details regarding any related cases or further legal actions were not available in the court filing.