The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 7 largely kept alive a case from importer Eteros Technologies USA and its CEO Aaron McKellar against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. Judge Kymberly Evanson said the court has jurisdiction to review the revocation of McKellar's NEXUS membership, which lets pre-screened travelers accelerate their entrance into the U.S., and that the case isn't mooted by CBP's vacatur of an order banning McKellar from entering the U.S. for five years (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).

The Commerce Department illegally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity is de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 8. Judge Jane Restani likened electricity provision to other "generally available and widely used" subsidies, such as "roads, bridges, schools, highways," that the agency is barred from countervailing under the CVD statute.

The Commerce Department correctly found that processors and producers of oil country tubular goods weren't double-counted in the agency's domestic production calculation underlying the antidumping duty investigations on OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5, the government added that importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to raise a host of arguments before Commerce they now attempt to bring before the appellate court (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

A petition from two importers for the Supreme Court to review whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for tariffs will be considered by the high court on Sept. 29. After briefing concluded on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, the matter was distributed for the court's Sept. 29 conference, where it will determine which cases make up its October 2025 term (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation for the importer's success in a previous CIT case concerning the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, since it doesn't arise out of a "law of the United States providing for" trade-related action.

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.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5 heard oral argument in a case on the Commerce Department's finding in the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was a de facto specific subsidy. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen pressed counsel for exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite and the U.S. government on whether the agency properly found that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" in Russia (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).

Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

Exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl asked a panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear its case on the use of partial adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. Salzgitter argued that the panel seemingly ruled against its proposed methodology for addressing missing manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates based on a misunderstanding of the methodology (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Commerce Department abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty investigation, which was filed one hour and 41 minutes late, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 4. Judge Todd Hughes filed a dissent in the case, noting that he believes "Commerce has extensive authority to enforce its own deadlines."