The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 30 vacated a decision from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to "switch to a new system for mitigating the risk of a pest outbreak caused by imported Chilean table grapes." Judge Amir Ali held that the action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (California Table Grape Commission v. U.S. Dep't of Ag., D.D.C. # 24-02645).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 2 scheduled a pair of cases for oral argument on Nov. 4 regarding the International Trade Commission's policy of redacting business proprietary information in questionnaire responses. The court said the two sides, which are the ITC and two court-appointed amici, will each get 20 minutes, with the two amici -- patent attorney Andrew Dhuey and Alex Moss, the executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute -- splitting their 20 minutes (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).

Importer Geotab said in a Sept. 30 complaint that its "GO Devices" -- used for “vehicle tracking and telematics” -- should've been classified as “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,” not “radio navigational aid apparatus.” As a result, they should have been liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, which provides for a 7.5% Section 301 duty on Chinese-origin products, not heading 8526, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty (Geotab Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00185).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the government's attempt to stay the case from members of Blackfeet Nation against the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act due to the federal government shutdown as "unnecessary" in light of the court's order issued in response to the shutdown (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

Court of International Trade judges Mark Barnett, Joseph Laroski, Lisa Wang, Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker, Claire Kelly, Timothy Reif and Richard Eaton stayed various cases before them after the government asked for a stay in light of the federal government shutdown.

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Domestic thermal paper producers on Sept. 29 opposed the Commerce Department’s continued inclusion, after a remand, of interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties in its calculation of German exporter Koehler Paper’s normal value for an AD investigation (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).

Importer PF America dropped another case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 duties on its vinyl flooring imports. The importer entered the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3916.20.0020 and 9903.88.17, though CBP classified the goods under subheadings 3916.20.0091 and 9903.88.02, subjecting the flooring to Section 301 duties. Recently, PF America dropped a separate suit also seeking Section 301 exclusions on its flooring entries under a similar secondary subheading (see 2509190050) (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00255).

Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week for permission to take part in the oral argument in a case on former Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission. Dhuey noted that a motions panel at the CAFC previously said his right to participate in oral argument shall be decided by the merits panel, and that the now-assigned merits panel has yet to issue a decision on the amicus' right to take part in the hearing (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).

The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit last week against wire garment hanger importer LGA Trading and its director, Galo Goya, at the Court of International Trade, seeking over $3.1 million as a penalty for negligence and over $1.9 million in unpaid duties (United States v. LGA Trading, CIT # 25-00214).