The U.S. opposed exporter Camel Group's motion to unredact part of the record in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 10 that disclosure of information deemed confidential "would substantially harm the Government's" law enforcement efforts in applying the UFLPA. The government told the Court of International Trade it has a "strong interest in protecting the law enforcement sensitive information," while Camel has "no compelling argument as to why disclosure to the public, or to Camel, as opposed to confidential disclosure, is necessary" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).

The Commerce Department showed its work in finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods is independent of the Vietnamese government and thus eligible for a separate rate under an antidumping duty order on Vietnamese catfish in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order, the Court of International Trade held on July 10. Judge M. Miller Baker also held that Commerce properly assigned exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company an AD rate taken from a simple average of respondent NTSF Seafood's zero percent rate and East Sea's adverse facts available rate.

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief last week in support of its motion to dismiss the case, the government argued that Eteros' case doesn't challenge the "administration and enforcement" of an import transaction" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

CBP properly found that importers American Pacific Plywood, InterGlobal Forest and U.S. Global Forest evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China via Cambodian producer LB Wood, the Court of International Trade held on July 9. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the evasion determination over a host of legal, procedural and factual claims made by InterGlobal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit fielded a total of 20 amicus briefs regarding the lawsuit against the tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 18 of which supported the importers and U.S. states challenging the tariffs. The amicus briefs came from 191 current members of Congress, various business interests, former government officials, advocacy groups and economists (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the ability for lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions doesn't affect the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 12 U.S. states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8. The states, led by Oregon, argued in a reply brief that the trade court's injunction, which applied to parties not part of the lawsuit against the tariffs, is necessary to afford the states complete relief (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden resigned from the court on July 4 and was sworn in as deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on July 7. Vaden was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month to serve in the number two role at USDA (see 2506120064).

Five different groups of amici on July 8 filed briefs in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All five briefs argued against the tariffs, though they differed in their specific approach or legal arguments (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).