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).
Scott McBride, a longtime trade official at the Commerce Department, told us that he has retired from the agency. McBride served at Commerce for about a quarter of a century, initially joining in 2000 as an attorney in the office of the chief counsel for import administration, then working up to associate deputy chief counsel for trade enforcement and compliance -- a position he held since October 2022. McBride said he chose to retire under the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, and that he starts at a private firm on May 5.
Three former officials at the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration have joined The Bristol Group, the firm announced. Emily Halle, former program manager at ITA, and Andre Gziryan, former senior policy analyst, have joined the firm as senior advisers. In addition, Scarlet Jaldin, former international trade compliance analyst at ITA, joined as an international trade analyst.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lacks authority to review a Montana court's order transferring a case from four Blackfeet Nation tribe members against various trade actions taken by President Donald Trump to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. argued on May 1. Moving the court to dismiss the case, the government said the appellate court "reviews final orders, but an order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for litigation to continue in another court is necessarily not final" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on April 29 told the 12 states challenging President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act they may file a brief laying out their position on a group of five importers' motion for summary judgment against Trump's reciprocal tariffs by May 8. The court said in a text-only order that the brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, doesn't bar the states from filing their own motion at a later date, nor will the brief be construed as a "waiver or forfeiture of any claim or argument."
The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.