Canadian exporter Inferfor brought a June 11 complaint to the Court of International Trade arguing CBP had wrongly ended the suspension of liquidation on its entries during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on softwood lumber from Canada (Interfor Sales & Marketing v. United States, CIT # 25-00105).

Importer Monarch Metals told the Court of International Trade that its stainless steel wire imports are products of Japan and not China, meaning its goods were improperly subjected to Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. In a complaint filed June 13, Monarch Metals said that under CBP's prior application of the substantial transformation test to steel wire, no substantial transformation occurs by drawing steel rod into steel wire (Monarch Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00266).

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

Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).

The U.S. and defendant-intervenors led by Archer Daniels Midland each argued June 10 that Loper Bright doesn’t impact the Commerce Department’s discretion in deciding to use a mandatory review respondent’s annual conversion costs and quarterly direct material costs (Citribel v. United States, CIT # 24-00010).

Importer Meyer Corporation U.S. and the U.S. traded supplemental briefs last week following a bench trial at the Court of International Trade on whether Meyer's cookware imports are entitled to first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation U.S. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

After a federal district court in Montana denied rehearing (see 2506020059), four members of the Blackfeet Nation appealed June 9 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as they continue to challenge the transfer of their International Emergency Economic Powers Act case out of the state. They argued again that the Constitution differentiates between commerce with foreign nations and commerce with Native Americans and that the trade court has only been granted jurisdiction over cases involving the former (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).

Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA filed a motion for judgment June 5 after a host of its other claims against the U.S. were dismissed in January (see 2501220064). It said that the Commerce Department wrongly rejected two of its Section 232 exclusion requests by claiming an authority based on national security that it didn’t actually have and two more by treating prospective presidential proclamations as retrospective (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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