Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).

Three wildlife advocacy groups took to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 to contest the collective failure of the Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security departments and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban fish or fish products exported from fisheries that don't meet U.S. bycatch standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gina Raimondo, CIT # 24-00148).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. Judge Claire Kelly said IRAdvocates failed to show that CBP's inaction "has harmed a core business or diminished any asset."

The U.S. said the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "is not pertinent" to the massive lawsuit on the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 said the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," is not presumptively unreasonable. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said instead that the "burden is on Commerce to justify a departure from the expected method, not to justify its use."

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.

After its bid for a preliminary injunction was denied by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2407260045), a customs broker fought Aug. 5 against a motion to dismiss its case, saying its complaint was ripe for litigation because CBP had already made the decision to deny its reinstatement to the agency's Entry Type 86 pilot (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).

The governments of Canada and Quebec, along with exporter Marmen Energy, vied for rehearing of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision sustaining the countervailability of a Canadian tax program. Filing for full court or en banc rehearing of the decision, the Canadian government said the court allowed the Commerce Department to ignore "economic reality" and elevated "form over substance" (The Government of Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1807)

The Court of International Trade earlier this month heard oral argument on whether a CBP protest denial effectively revoked a prior CBP protest decision by applying a different tariff classification to identical merchandise, and should have been subject to a notice-and-comment period (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week affirmed the convictions of six companies for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, customs fraud and promotional money laundering. However, the court said the trial court failed to resolve the parties' dispute on the value of the companies' warehouses before finding that they "lacked the ability to pay" the over $1.8 billion judgment and "ordering a nominal payment schedule."