National security attorneys Maria Alejandra del-Cerro and Elyssa Kutner have joined DLA Piper as partners in the national security and global trade practice, the firm announced. Del-Cerro is a former attorney in the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and joins DLA Piper from Crowell & Moring, where she'd worked as a partner since 2022. Kutner joins the firm from Sidley Austin, where she worked as an associate, then as counsel, since 2020.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's selection of benchmarks in assessing the provision of phosphate rock mining rights and natural gas for less than adequate remuneration programs weren't supported by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Judge Jane Restani held that Commerce improperly excluded sedimentary phosphate rock in constructing the benchmark for the phosphate rock mining rights program and failed to show Kazakh natural gas would be available to Russian purchasers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 5 sharply questioned importer Valeo North America's argument that the Commerce Department improperly included its T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. During a May 5 oral argument, Judges Todd Hughes, Richard Taranto and Kara Stoll pressed Valeo on its claim that Commerce distorted the scope language (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
A group of five small importers filed their opposition to the U.S. government's motion to transfer their case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The importers, led by Simplified, argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case because IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 dismissed three customs cases for lack of prosecution. All three were added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Flow Control v. U.S., CIT # 21-00201; Safran Electronics and Defense v. U.S., CIT # 23-00086; Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).
Importer Inspired Ventures moved the Court of International Trade for a mediator in its case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions that the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. Inspired Ventures said the issue is "ripe for settlement" in light of the government's concession that CBP erred in detaining the tires (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
The Commerce Department continued to exclude certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 2, Commerce assessed various (k)(1) sources, namely the original 1991 petition, the 1992 International Trade Commission report, a prior circumvention finding and statements from industry officials upon direction from the court (Tube Forgings of America v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
The Commerce Department appropriately focused on the current availability of domestic steel as opposed to the availability at the time an importer placed a foreign order when considering Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said the focus on current availability is in line with the "purpose of the Section 232 import measures," which are meant to "increase and improve domestic capacity over time" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).