The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates filed a lawsuit this week against Starbucks on behalf of eight individuals who were trafficked and forced to work on "Starbucks-controlled coffee plantations in Brazil." The complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks class certification for all trafficked laborers in Brazil and alleges that Starbucks knowingly benefitted from this slave labor, which took place on thousands of supplier plantations (John Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, D.D.C. # 25-01261).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Importer Under the Weather on April 23 dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade after the trade court refused to let the company add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods" to its complaint (see 2504150053) (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

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).