The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that it has jurisdiction over ICON EV LLC's claims against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the imposition of interim measures without prior notice. This decision, made on May 26, 2026, affects ICON EV, a company that imports electric golf carts, and could have significant implications for how CBP conducts investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA).
The case stems from allegations that CBP violated ICON's Fifth Amendment due process rights by imposing heavy duties on its imports without giving the company a chance to respond. The court's ruling allows ICON to continue its legal battle against the government, which had sought to dismiss the case citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Background
ICON EV LLC, based in the United States, imports certain electric vehicles known as low-speed personal transportation vehicles (LSPTVs) from China. The company found itself in a legal dispute with the U.S. government after CBP initiated an investigation under the EAPA, which aims to prevent evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties.
On April 6, 2026, CBP imposed interim measures on ICON, requiring it to pay duties exceeding 500% on its imports. ICON claims it received no prior notice of the investigation or the interim measures, which it argues violates its due process rights. The company filed a complaint on April 13, 2026, alongside a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of these measures.
The Ruling
Judge Jane A. Restani ruled that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over ICON's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The court denied the government's motion to dismiss, stating, "the court holds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over ICON’s claims and denies the government’s motion." This ruling means that ICON can pursue its claims against CBP regarding the alleged due process violations.
The court emphasized that the imposition of interim measures constituted a final agency action, making the case ripe for judicial review. Judge Restani noted that the failure to provide due process by not allowing ICON a chance to respond before imposing duties was a significant factor in the court's decision.
Impact
This ruling is important as it sets a precedent for how interim measures under the EAPA can be challenged in court. It indicates that companies may have the right to contest such measures before a final determination is made by CBP, especially if they face immediate and severe financial consequences.
The decision could affect not only ICON but also other businesses facing similar situations where they believe their due process rights are being violated. It highlights the need for CBP to ensure that companies are given proper notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing significant financial penalties.
What's Next
Following this ruling, ICON will likely proceed with its case against CBP. The government may still seek to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future enforcement actions by CBP under the EAPA.