The Commerce Department's selection of benchmarks in assessing the provision of phosphate rock mining rights and natural gas for less than adequate remuneration programs weren't supported by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Judge Jane Restani held that Commerce improperly excluded sedimentary phosphate rock in constructing the benchmark for the phosphate rock mining rights program and failed to show Kazakh natural gas would be available to Russian purchasers.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 dismissed three customs cases for lack of prosecution. All three were added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Flow Control v. U.S., CIT # 21-00201; Safran Electronics and Defense v. U.S., CIT # 23-00086; Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).

Importer Inspired Ventures moved the Court of International Trade for a mediator in its case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions that the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. Inspired Ventures said the issue is "ripe for settlement" in light of the government's concession that CBP erred in detaining the tires (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

The Commerce Department continued to exclude certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 2, Commerce assessed various (k)(1) sources, namely the original 1991 petition, the 1992 International Trade Commission report, a prior circumvention finding and statements from industry officials upon direction from the court (Tube Forgings of America v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lacks authority to review a Montana court's order transferring a case from four Blackfeet Nation tribe members against various trade actions taken by President Donald Trump to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. argued on May 1. Moving the court to dismiss the case, the government said the appellate court "reviews final orders, but an order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for litigation to continue in another court is necessarily not final" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

After Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu remanded, for the second time, a de facto specificity finding regarding a tax penalties and fines relief program used by Moroccan exporter OCP that he called “absurd,” the Commerce Department reluctantly reversed course April 29 (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116)..

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif heard oral arguments April 30 regarding an affirmative evasion finding for countertop importer Vanguard Trading Co. Among other things, the case challenges the strict liability standard CBP has established for importers regarding evasion and CBP’s ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during EAPA investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

CBP will pay refunds of Section 301 duties paid on importer CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing's aluminum road wheels, the importer and the U.S. said in a stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 30. The judgment said CITIC Dicastal's wheels were subject to an exclusion from a 10% Section 301 duty the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for wheels imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.4545, which provides for aluminum wheels for motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 (CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00159).

The Court of International Trade committed "clear error" in classifying Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 without performing a GRI 2(a) analysis, the U.S. argued. Defending its bid for a rehearing before the trade court, the government said Honeywell's claim that there's no "significant flaw" in the CIT's decision ignores the fact that the court at no point found the brake segments to be a "finished part" (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida set a May 12 deadline for parties to file amicus briefs in a case brought by importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, against President Donald Trump's tariffs on China imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the company opened its lawsuit, the U.S. moved to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (see 2504150022). So far in the case, only one amicus brief has been filed, and it came from the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation, which sought to defend the government's bid to transfer the case (see 2504160047) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).