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

A trade group that requested antidumping and countervailing duties on glass wine bottles brought a 27-count complaint to the Court of International Trade on May 21. The petitioner challenged the International Trade Commission’s determination that bottle imports weren’t harming the domestic industry (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00076).

The U.S. filed a May 19 supplemental brief in a 2021 case involving dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand to address the case’s last “remaining contention” after the importer lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty scope case filed by importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma. Judges Kimberly Moore, Haldane Mayer, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).

In a May 20 amicus curiae brief for California’s challenge of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, NYU’s Brennan Center laid out the legislative history of IEEPA, arguing it doesn’t support a ruling that the law was meant to grant the president tariff powers (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The Court of International Trade on May 23 assigned a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold on goods from China to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani. The court has assigned these same three judges to all cases challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.

Letex Apparels, a Hong Kong trading company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that CBP negligently seized or forfeited 26,016 of the company's imported garments valued at $460,743.36. The company argued that, in handling its merchandise, CBP failed to "exercise due care" in handling the goods and violated the company's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, the Administrative Procedure Act and a federal rule of criminal procedure requiring the return of property held by the government that isn't needed for evidentiary purposes (Letex Apparels Co. v. United States, C.D. Cal. # 2:25-04462).

The U.S. supported May 19 its motion to dismiss Canadian exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ challenge to the results of a Commerce Department pipe investigation (see 2503250054). The exporter has admitted it erred when it filed under the wrong jurisdictional regulation, the government said (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).

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

Fluid end block exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen attempted to "inject" an end-use requirement into antidumping and countervailing duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks, the U.S. said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. BGH Edelstahl argues that its forged steel blocks are not “fluid end blocks" because they aren't specifically meant for use in hydraulic pumps, it said (see 2503190024) (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).