Canada Tariff Injunction Bid Seeks Broad Relief but Refunds for Gellert
Gellert asks the CIT to halt Section 338 tariff collection for all importers, but its proposed refund order names only Gellert and its motion excludes the import bans.
Primary lensEntry posture review
Sub-topicRefund posture
Evidence base4 records used
Use caseRefund posture
Gellert Global Group wants the Court of International Trade to block collection of the Section 338 Canada tariffs from all importers. Its October 23 proposed order would direct repayment only to Gellert, including entries under its former name, Atalanta. The same motion expressly leaves the separate import bans outside the relief sought. Those distinctions appear in Gellert's October 23 motion and proposed order, ECF 6, PDF pages 2-6.
For another importer, a favorable order could reduce future duty costs without repaying historical deposits or reopening a prohibited supply route. The order's terms would determine those effects. The motion and unsigned proposed order change none of them.
The proposed order separates collection from repayment
The enforcement paragraph of Gellert's proposed order would restrain enforcement of the July tariff proclamations and proclamations modifying, supplementing or implementing those tariffs. The supporting memorandum asks the court to extend that restraint beyond Gellert. The next paragraphs name the plaintiff as the recipient of refunds and require reliquidation of its entries as necessary.
Decision
October 23 request
Limit for another importer
Budget future Section 338 duties
Restrain collection beyond the named plaintiff
Any issued order must establish coverage, effective terms and whether the restraint remains in force
Recover duties already paid
Refund Gellert, with lawful interest, and reliquidate its entries as needed
These proposed paragraphs do not order refunds to other importers
Resume a prohibited import
No relief requested against Proclamations 11061, 11062 or 11063
The tariff request supplies no authority to release goods barred by those instruments
Gellert's broader case still matters. Its October 20 complaint, ECF 2, PDF pages 24-27 and 35-36 seeks class certification and relief for a proposed class, including refunds. The narrower repayment provisions in the October 23 motion do not withdraw those claims. But class allegations are not themselves a certification order.
Gellert argues that an injunction should run against the tariffs themselves because its challenge concerns the President's authority to impose them. It invokes the trade court's national jurisdiction and its statutory power to award appropriate injunctions. It also argues that limiting relief to one importer could produce repeated lawsuits and inconsistent administration of the customs laws.
The scope argument in ECF 6, PDF pages 66-67 distinguishes Trump v. CASA on the ground that the CIT has its own statutory remedial powers. That is Gellert's position. The filing does not establish that the court must accept it. Gellert expressly asks, at a minimum, for an injunction protecting itself and a refund of its own duties.
Winning on statutory authority would not answer who benefits. For an importer outside the case, a plaintiff-specific injunction and a broader collection restraint have different consequences for the purchasing budget. Either outcome would still require a separate reading of the repayment provisions.
Import bans remain outside this motion
The limitation on bans is express. On PDF page 2, Gellert says it seeks no relief in this motion against the prohibitions under Proclamations 11061, 11062 and 11063 because they do not currently apply to its imported products.
In ECF 6, PDF pages 64-65, Gellert invokes the possibility that bans could be expanded to its cheeses as part of its harm argument. That discussion does not turn the existing bans into requested relief. Evidence offered to explain the urgency of stopping duties is different from an operative request to remove a prohibition.
For procurement, this prevents a costly assumption. A lower landed-cost forecast does not authorize importing goods covered by a ban. The goods' admissibility would still require an action that actually reaches the relevant ban. Traverse's analysis of the September bans and earlier unentered stock explains the separate customs events involved.
Gellert says a later refund would come too late
The company's evidence explains why it wants collection stopped before the litigation ends. In Thomas Gellert's declaration, ECF 6-1, paragraphs 6-7 and 12-17, the co-chief executive describes longstanding Canadian supply relationships and difficulty replacing their cheese with domestic production at the required quality and volume. He says Gellert is absorbing tariffs through year-end while delaying hiring and investment and facing pressure on working capital and margins.
Gellert forecasts higher prices, reduced sales, lost product placements and disrupted supplier relationships if duties continue. These are the company's claims about its business, including future risks. They are not findings that suppliers have closed or customers have already departed.
A refund estimate therefore measures only part of the cost of waiting. Counsel assessing an importer's need for interim relief would also need evidence of decisions that cannot easily be reversed, such as a customer's product replacement or a supplier's planned production reduction. A duty total alone does not show when those decisions become unavoidable. Nor does one company's declaration establish another importer's injury.
October 30 brings a separate change in exposure
The forecast has another near-term input. The October 23 White House proclamation removes specified products from the additional duty and adds others for goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12.01 a.m. Eastern on October 30, 2026. That administrative change can alter exposure independently of the court request. The motion does not expressly identify the October 23 action. Its proposed language covering tariff modifications is not a judicial determination about every later instrument.
The immediate task is to apply the October 30 product changes to the purchase forecast. If the court grants relief, counsel should compare the order's coverage with that forecast and check its effective terms and any stay before finance changes the duty assumption. Refunds would need their own coverage and implementation record. A later class order or amended request concerning the bans could change the repayment or admissibility analysis.
Daily Trade Brief
Get the next one in your inbox.
New U.S. trade actions and the analysis that changes an import, customs, or counsel file, on weekday mornings after you confirm your address.
From reading to review
Run the numbers on your lane.
The duty calculator runs the current stack for any HTS code and origin. A free account opens full tool output, AD/CVD detail, Chapter 98 processing, and available exports.