The U.S. filed a supplemental brief on Dec. 3 urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a Montana court's decision to transfer a group of tribal members' tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade. The government said the plaintiffs will be able to fully adjudicate their claims at the trade court and that the 9th Circuit can't review the Montana court's transfer order, since it's not a final order nor an "immediately appealable collateral order" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates), an anti-forced labor advocacy group, filed suit last month against Apple, claiming the company engages in false and deceptive marketing of its products by touting the ethical sourcing of its minerals, while the actual sourcing of these minerals tells a different story.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content. The government in appealing the case joins the petitioner, who has already asked the appellate court for expedited consideration of the matter (see 2511260067) (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a stipulation of dismissal in an antidumping duty case it filed earlier this year at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Nebraska man Byungmin Chae on Dec. 3 urged the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider his second case against the results of his April 2018 customs broker license examination after the court dismissed the case on the basis that Chae should have raised his claims in his first case on the test (Byungmin Chae v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1379).
Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding's argument against two issues in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on Indonesian mattresses amount to "mere disagreement" with the Commerce Department's decisions, "falling far short of the required showing," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 3 reply brief (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss a case from importer Eteros Technologies and three of its executives alleging retaliation against the parties for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The government told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the plaintiffs "continue to conflate customs and immigration law" and failed to "plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).