If you've been following the legal arguments over US tariffs, November was a busy month. As the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether the US President has the authority to impose tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), multiple companies filed related lawsuits in the US Court of International Trade.
The one that's grabbed most of the headlines is Costco, of course; even if you haven't particularly been paying attention to what's been going on, you've probably seen or heard at least one story about this by now. It's easily the biggest and most recognizable name on the list, but it's far from the only one.
In fact, close to 100 companies had initially filed individual lawsuits with the CIT, and through three different consolidation motions, have since all been rolled into a single, larger case with multiple plaintiffs against three defendants: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Commissioner of US CBP Rodney S. Scott (in his official capacity); and the United States of America.
You may have seen court cases like this before, where multiple, substantially similar cases are consolidated (after agreement between both the plaintiffs and the defendants in those cases) so that a court may issue a single broader, more efficient ruling and speed up the process for all parties involved.
RideApart has reviewed all available court filings in this case through December 11, 2025, and Kawasaki is on the list.
Three Separate Rounds Of Case Consolidation Have Been Rolled Into A Single Case, Where Close To 100 Plaintiffs Are Seeking Relief From The Court Of International Trade
The name of the case is AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Rodney S. Scott, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and the United States of America.
Since the initial filing at the beginning of November 2025, three separate rounds of consolidation of substantially similar cases against the same defendants have now been combined under that name. Multiple big-name plaintiffs are on this list, including Ricoh, Yokohama Tire Corp, NGK, Sumitomo, Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corporation USA, Interstate Batteries, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, Alcoa USA, EssilorLuxxotica (the world's biggest eyeglass company; also, of tangentially related interest, the maker of Ray-Ban's Meta glasses). Costco, Schick, Diamond Baseball Company, and ViewSonic Corporation, just to name a few.
Who Or What Is Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corporation Usa?
All the way back in 1974, Kawasaki decided to manufacture certain vehicles it planned to sell in the US in America. That's why it has long-running manufacturing facilities in Lincoln, Nebraska, as well as Maryville, Missouri. If you love Kawasaki's side-by-sides, that's where they're made. But as Kawasaki itself notes on its own webpage about KMM Corp. USA, it utilizes the "just in time" manufacturing philosophy, which seeks to avoid warehousing a ton of extra parts by instead keeping up a constant flow of necessary parts only as and when needed for production.
That's a pretty normal production philosophy for a great many manufacturing companies in 2025, across industries. When things work as they should, it flows smoothly. But at the same time, any little supply chain interruption can have great potential for disruption.
What Specific Remedies Does This Lawsuit Seek?
The complaint makes specific mention of the expectation of a ruling from the Supreme Court in its parallel case regarding the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. However, the plaintiffs' positions in the Court of International Trade case are that "even if the underlying executive orders are held unlawful by the Supreme Court, importers that have paid IEEPA duties, including Plaintiff, are not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief."
It goes on to say that filing such a complaint is necessary at the present time because "the entries for which Plaintiff paid tariffs imposed under authority of IEEPA will begin to become liquidated and final as a matter of law by January 31, 2026."
That's also why the complaint seeks a preliminary injunction, ideally prior to the break for the end of December holidays, to suspend the liquidation dates over worries that it may not be able to recover the tariffs already collected otherwise, even if the Supreme Court rules that the IEEPA tariff declarations were unlawfully applied.
What Does 'liquidation' Mean In This Application?
Most regular laypeople are used to hearing the term 'liquidation' applied to retail store going-out-of-business sales, or to other bankruptcy-related proceedings. That's not what this is.
In this case, the complaint spells out the full liquidation process as being "the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries." So, what does that mean?
Let's say an importer (in this case, any of the businesses that are plaintiffs in this case, for example) brings goods into the US. Under the current rules, they'll pay an estimated duty on those goods based on their customs declaration.
Once those goods are here, CBP will review that declaration, and may also choose to inspect the goods that have been imported. CBP may then, at its discretion, assign a different final duty value for those imported goods. It will then inform the importer whether it owes additional money, or whether a refund on excess duties is due back to the importer.
But the reason all these plaintiffs have filed their cases now is because under the current rules, as the complaint states, "liquidation, unless extended, must happen within one year." Elsewhere, the complaint notes that plaintiffs have requested an extension of the liquidation deadline from CBP, which the latter was unwilling to grant as of an unspecified communication on October 16, 2025.
And so, they filed these lawsuits at the beginning of November.
Kawasaki And The Other Plaintiffs Don't Want To Lose The Opportunity To Recover All The Tariffs They've Paid So Far If The Supreme Court Finds The LEEPA-predicated Executive Order Tariffs To Be Illegal.
One argument the initial Complaint by the plaintiffs makes is that "This Court [the US Court of International Trade] and the Federal Circuit have cautioned that an importer may lack the legal right to recover refunds of duties for entries that have liquidated, even where the underlying legality of a tariff is later found to be unlawful." It goes on to note that "the entries for which the Plaintiff has paid IEEPA duties imposed by the Challenged Tariff Orders are scheduled to begin to liquidate on or after December 15, 2025."
The original complaint was filed on November 11, 2025, and subsequent motions to consolidate cases that rolled all the plaintiffs together were filed on November 19, December 1, and December 5, respectively. On November 12, the case was assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani.
On November 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction from the court, which would formally suspend the liquidation dates for all plaintiffs in this case.
Why Are Kawasaki And The Other Plaintiffs Seeking A Liquidation Suspension?
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that their clients might face "irreparable harm" if the liquidation dates are allowed to proceed. The request for a preliminary injunction from the Court further argues that "plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits," citing the legal principle of stare decisis. If your eyes just glazed over because there's a random Latin phrase in front of you, don't worry; you actually do know what this is, even if you may not necessarily know it by name.
Basically, it's precedent. Legal precedent, to be more precise. You're probably familiar with the idea by osmosis, whether it's because you've been paying attention to the news for years, or you've watched countless courtroom dramas or movies in your lifetime.
The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs' legal team cites another case as precedent for the idea after liquidation, "the duties cannot be recovered through subsequent litigation," and goes on to argue that "the importer's only remedy would be eliminated." It also goes on to argue that any hardships brought about by this motion would pose "a negligible burden on Defendants" for the duration of time that the Supreme Court decides its own case on the matter, also bringing up the fact that CBP declined to grant an extension of the liquidation dates.
Where Does The Case Stand Now?
As of December 11, 2025, the requested preliminary injunction has not been granted, and the attorneys for CBP have filed a response to the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
Their argument against suspending liquidation of duties for the plaintiffs essentially boils down to three things:
- That "they have repeatedly assured plaintiffs and this Court that they will not oppose or object to the Court's authority to order reliquidation of plaintiffs' subject entries of merchandise, or to a final decision ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs' subject entries, should the Supreme Court hold the IEEPA duties at issue unlawful." Is this legalese for the concept of a pinky swear?
- That "defendants face a very real hardship from an injunction suspending liquidation ... As of December 10, 2025, approximately 34 million entries have been filed by over 301,000 importers that are subject to the IEEPA duties challenged in the Supreme Court. Approximately 19.2 million remain unliquidated as of December 10, 2025. Should CBP be enjoined from liquidating entries subject to the challenged IEEPA orders, it would be tasked with managing an injunction of unprecedented scale and scope." In other words, it would be SO MUCH WORK, YOU GUYS.
- That "the diversion of [CBP] resources would be even more crushing now when there are approximately 19.2 million unliquidated entries. It is not enough for plaintiffs to say that they are merely seeking an injunction with respect to their entries; issuing an injunction with respect to these plaintiffs will invariably result in countless other plaintiffs requesting the same." It goes on to add that "The cascading effects of such injunctions threatens the precise harm detailed in the CBP declaration."
- That "it is inequitable to require CBP to act immediately when plaintiffs have waited until the last minute to seek an injunction." I'm no lawyer, but this argument seems to conveniently neglect the earlier referenced communication between the plaintiffs and CBP requesting an extension of the liquidation deadlines, which the CBP reportedly declined to grant as of October 16, 2025. The plaintiffs in these cases then began filing their legal complaints with the US Court of International Trade at the beginning of November, which seems like a reasonable amount of time to file after being told 'no' and yet wishing to act in time to avoid potential liquidation.
It's December 12 as I write this, so that's the most recent information available. It's unclear what the panel of judges will decide, nor indeed what the Supreme Court will decide about the legality of IEEPA declarations as regards these tariffs more broadly. Nevertheless, we'll be sure to keep you updated here at RideApart as more information arises.
