Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).

The U.S. renewed a cross-motion for judgment June 6 regarding the classification of importer HyAxiom’s hydrogen fuel cell generator components, saying the importer’s product was “a multi-functional machine” classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8479. The government’s initial motion was dismissed by Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu in August 2024 (see 2408290019) (HyAxiom v. United States, CIT # 21-00057).

After a second remand by the Court of International Trade (see 2503110034), the Commerce Department said it analyzed five additional (k)(2) factors, as ordered, and as a result determined that exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles weren't actually covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

The government withdrew its emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 3 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs pending the government's appeal of the decision (see 2506030048). The U.S. said Judge Rudolph Contreras' decision staying his judgment "renders moot the government's motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal. The government is also seeking an emergency stay of the Court of International Trade's decision vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though CAFC has issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in a customs penalty suit between the U.S. and importer Katana Racing resulted in a settlement of all issues, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reported on June 6 (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).

The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, an antidumping duty petitioner, told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision regarding respondent Assan Aluminyum's duty drawback adjustment is relevant for its case also involving a duty drawback adjustment claim from Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).

In one of several cases brought by the United States against surety bond company Aegis Security, DOJ opposed a motion by Aegis asking for a more definite complaint (see 2505140077). The complaint provided enough information for Aegis to reasonably file a response, it said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00051).

Following a voluntary remand which saw the Commerce Department maintain a prior determination, petitioner ArcelorMittal Tubular Products said that DOJ was inventing a new, post-hoc rule that entities couldn’t be collapsed across borders (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).

The U.S. disagreed May 30 with an importer’s claim that the Commerce Department’s post-remand scope ruling on wood mouldings and millwork products expanded relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to cover “an infinite universe of products.” The orders are simply intentionally broad, it said (Hardware Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00150).