The U.S. said the Court of International Trade's recent decision denying five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against the "reciprocal" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act affirms the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases related to IEEPA tariffs. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging various IEEPA tariffs, the government said any decision from the Montana court to retain jurisdiction "would necessarily contradict" the trade court's decision (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).

The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation appeared as an amicus in a second case filed in a U.S. district court challenging the imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to defend the government's bid to transfer the cases to the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the foundation said it's providing the court with "another basis for transfer" to CIT (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 21 issued its mandate after finding in February that CBP didn't need to refer the question of whether petitioner CP Kelco still made oilfield xanthan gum to the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty evasion case. The appellate court said the evidence didn't support such a referral and, in any case, the referral would only apply to future merchandise and not the goods subject to the evasion case (see 2502270018). The Federal Circuit also said CBP permissibly used adverse inferences against the manufacturers of the subject xanthan gum given their failure to submit requested information, notwithstanding the full participation of the importers subject to the proceeding (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

Importer Atlas Power said April 15 in a reply to a government cross-motion for judgment that “years” after entering its merchandise, the United States was suddenly offering “a recently developed explanation” as to why its products, computer parts, had been assessed Section 301 duties (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

The Court of International Trade in an April 22 confidential decision remanded the International Trade Commission's injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. A docket entry from the court said on remand the ITC can "take new evidence, reconsider existing evidence, or take any other action allowed by its procedures" to reach a conclusion supported by substantial evidence (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

The Montana Farmers Union moved to intervene in a case brought by four members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe challenging various trade action taken by President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The agriculture trade group said it qualifies for intervention as a "matter of right," alternatively arguing that the court should permit the group to intervene even if it doesn't have the right to intervene (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).

Four wheel exporters will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the inclusion of trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. Filing four notices of appeal, exporters Asia Wheel Co., Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel, Trailstar and Dexter Distribution Group f/k/a Textrail said they will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling (see 2502210039) (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

The Court of International Trade ruled April 22 that filling out a single mandatory importer questionnaire response at the beginning of an International Trade Commission injury investigation isn’t enough for an importer to establish itself as a party to the proceeding.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: