The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
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 Commerce Department erred in not applying adverse facts available to antidumping duty respondent Tenaris Mexico for its failure to properly explain its "nonstandard basket category Threading codes" in the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Mexico, petitioner U.S. Steel argued in a Dec. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade (United States Steel v. United States, CIT # 25-00243).
CBP improperly denied importer Software Brokers of America, doing business as Intcomex, the temporary exclusion from International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China for in-transit merchandise, the importer argued in a Dec. 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Software Brokers of America d/b/a Intcomex v. United States, CIT # 25-00381).
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).
Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.