Defending a motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said again July 23 that fish oil importer BASF Corp.’s products should have been classified as “food preparations” and that the Court of International Trade defined “fish extracts” too broadly. The trade court failed to address several U.S. points raised during litigation, so the standard for reconsideration has been met, it claimed (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

The Court of International Trade on July 29 lifted its statutory injunction on the liquidation of exporter Siderca's entries of oil country tubular goods from Argentina after importers led by Tenaris Bay City asked the court to lift its injunction. Judge Claire Kelly noted that although the importers appealed the trade court's decision sustaining the Commerce Department's dumping determination, the appeal only concerns the agency's initiation of the investigation and the "continued existence" of the antidumping duty order (Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00343).

Countervailing duty petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 25 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's CVD investigation into epoxy resins from South Korea. The six-count complaint challenged, among other things, Commerce's alleged failure to use world price benchmarks in calculating the benefit from the provision of epichlorohydrin, a key epoxy resin input, and the agency's decision not to investigate the provision of certain chemical inputs for less than adequate remuneration (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 25-00147).

The U.S. filed its reply briefs in a pair of appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on whether challenges to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act belong in the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from the State of California and various members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, the government said the case "arises out of" President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, giving CIT exclusive jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) (State of California v. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 issued its mandate in a case on the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Italian pasta, remanding the review to the Court of International Trade (see 2506050021). The court said Commerce failed to account for the Food and Drug Administration's "mandated rounding rules on the protein content listed on the label" of U.S. pasta and the "different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors used in calculating protein content" in the U.S. and Italy in comparing Italian and American products. Judges Alan Lourie, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll said the agency improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060)

In a July 24 complaint, Chinese-origin 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyactic acid (2,4-D) importer PBI-Gordon Corp. challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury determination regarding its products on a number of fronts (PBI-Gordon Corp. v. United States, CIT # 25-00140).

In its motion for judgment July 25, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. again argued (see 2502070029) that Turkey was the wrong surrogate selection for a Commerce Department investigation on melamine from Qatar because of different particular market situations that existed in both Turkey and Qatar (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).

An entry of gold jewelry from Oman qualifies for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, importer Empire Jewelry argued in a July 28 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The importer noted that CBP doesn't disagree as to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that applies to the case, subheading 7113.19.5090, but rather whether the jewelry originates in Oman under the terms of the FTA (Empire Jewelry v. United States, CIT # 24-00127).

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

Importer Tri State Honey on July 24 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments. In filing the suit, the company said CBP unlawfully detained the shipments and held them for nearly a year without explanation (see 2504300014). The importer was seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, since CBP allegedly violated the company's "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin. Counsel for Tri State Honey didn't respond to a request for comment (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).