In a sur-reply supporting its motion for judgment (see 2410220026), surety company Aegis Security Insurance said it was responding to several new arguments the U.S. raised in a reply defending CBP’s 2016 attempt to collect unpaid duties that had been outstanding since 2002 (see 2503210069) (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).

The U.S. moved to transfer the State of California's lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. With the April 17 motion, the government has now moved to transfer all three cases filed in federal district courts to the trade court (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The Commerce Department's inclusion of Export Packers Company's imported garlic in the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic isn't backed by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on April 18. Judge Jane Restani said that Commerce's focus on two prior scope rulings concerning garlic blanched in boiling water is "misplaced" and that the agency's remaining (k)(2) analysis is "similarly flawed."

Plywood importer Interglobal Forest defended April 10 its attempt to have the Court of International Trade take judicial notice of three items from other proceedings: a stipulated judgment, a motion for entry of confession of judgment and a discovery response (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's AD investigation on mattresses from Indonesia. In the ruling, the trade court said Commerce properly excluded in-transit mattresses from the calculation of constructed export price for respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia (see 2502180056). The trade court also upheld the agency's exclusion of the selling expenses of Zinus Indonesia's parent company Zinus Korea from the normal value calculation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00277).

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

In support of its motion to dismiss, the U.S. pointed out that importer Houston Shutters had directly conceded in its reply (see 2504010074) that jurisdiction wasn’t unavailable under 28 U.S C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).

CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).

The Court of International Trade dismissed exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s challenge to CBP's issuance of a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries. However, in a confidential decision issued on April 16, Judge Claire Kelly denied the government's motion to dismiss Hoshine's second claim, which contested CBP's refusal to modify the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

After a remand by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2412170041), the Commerce Department again found in a countervailing duty administrative review’s final results that South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration was specific to the country’s steel industry (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).