The Court of International Trade on July 3 denied the International Trade Commission's request to redact five pieces of information from the court's public version of its decision remanding the commission's affirmative injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. Concurrently, Judge Stephen Vaden released the public decision, which said the record "raises serious questions about whether domestic producers were able and willing to supply consumers during the period of review."

The Court of International Trade on July 3 let importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations add three documents to the record in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said the documents are needed to review whether Commerce improperly declined to add the documents to the record in the AD investigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's recent ruling in a trade-related False Claims Act case likely will create more customs fraud enforcement led by private parties and should lead importers to be extra wary that they are complying with U.S. trade laws, various laws firms said. The case is Island Industries v. Sigma Corp. (9th Cir. # 22-55063).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 1 scheduled oral argument for the lawsuit challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Sept. 30, nearly two months after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a parallel IEEPA tariff suit. The court said the composition of the panel hearing the argument is usually revealed 30 days before the oral argument date (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The America First Legal Foundation, an advocacy group aligned with President Donald Trump, argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia got the question of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction wrong in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Filing an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation provided an alternative basis for the appellate court to find that the case belongs at CIT: IEEPA provides for embargoes for reasons other than the "protection of the public health or safety" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

CBP's decision to substitute the International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor for the "statutory definition of forced labor" is "arbitrary and capricious" and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing a reply in support of its motion for judgment to the Court of International Trade on June 30, Kingtom argued that while CBP can use the ILO indicators "as part of its framework for determining if forced labor exists," it can't wholesale swap the indicators for the term's statutory definition (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public July 2 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that antidumping duty respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos and an unnamed supplier, referred to as "Supplier A," are neither affiliates nor partners. Judge Claire Kelly said the parties aren't affiliates, since neither party is reliant on the other nor controls the other, nor are they partners, since the companies aren't involved in a "cooperative business endeavor in which they share risk and reward."

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.

The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).