Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, defended Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission in one of his decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an April 28 brief, Dhuey argued that 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(2)(B) explicitly gave Vaden discretion to disclose the contested materials (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
Egypt opened a safeguard investigation on hot-rolled flat steel on April 22, the country told the World Trade Organization. Egypt's Ministry of Investment and Foreign Trade said interested parties should make themselves known within 30 days of April 22.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Snap One, doing business as SnapAV or Control 4, voluntarily dismissed two customs suits at the Court of International Trade on April 28. The company brought the cases to contest CBP's classification of its network management controllers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8537.10.9170, dutiable at 2.7%, arguing that instead the goods fit under subheading 8517.62.0090, free of general and Section 301 duties. Counsel for Snap One didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Snap One v. United States, CIT #s 23-00078, -00079).
CBP unlawfully detained 11 shipments of honey from importer Tri State Honey and held the entries for "nearly a year without explanation or justification," the importer argued in an April 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, Tri State Honey said CBP violated its "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).
The U.S. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
Bahrain formally accepted the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies on April 28, bringing the number of countries that have accepted the deal to 97. The WTO needs 14 more countries to accept to get to two-thirds of the membership, the threshold for the agreement to take effect.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 28 denied a motion from four members of the Blackfeet Nation that sought to keep the established schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada after the Montana court transferred the matter to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. United States, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
Judge Stephen Vaden last week responded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's invitation to respond to the International Trade Commission's petition for writ of mandamus regarding Vaden's decision finding the ITC's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful. Vaden said the ITC lacks standing to petition for mandamus review, since the information belongs to the parties taking part in the injury proceeding and not the commission, and that the petition fails on the merits (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).