Appellants and domestic mattress petitioners objected July 8 to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit order to remove mattress importer Zinus’ own appeal from the combined appeal (see 2506250052) (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

The U.S. is trying to rehash settled issues in a customs suit on the classification of Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft, Honeywell argued in a July 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While the government argued that the court should have performed a GRI 2(a) analysis, Honeywell argued that no such analysis was needed and that, even assuming GRI 2 is applicable, "the result is the same" that the parts are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

Information collected under the Export Control Reform Act is “presumptively withheld” from Freedom of Information Act requests, the U.S. said July 14 in a case involving the disclosure of documents related to an addition to the Entity List (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).

Importer Gum Products International filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on July 17 to contest the Commerce Department's scope rulings concerning the company's oilfield equipment lubricant and food ingredient products. In both scope determinations, Commerce said the importer's products fall under the scope of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China (Gum Products International v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00108, -00109).

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

The U.S. on July 15 opposed importer Simplified's bid to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its stay of proceedings in its case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that Simplified's case will be resolved by the current appeal on the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).

Importers Waaree Energies and ISS Global Forwarding Texas on July 14 dropped their case at the Court of International Trade on CBP's collection of excess safeguard duties on solar cell imports. The case was stayed pending resolution of Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., which concerned President Donald Trump's revocation of the tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in SEIA that the tariff exclusion revocation was lawful (see 2311130031) (Waaree Energies v. United States, CIT #22-00296).

Exporters BYD (H.K.), Canadian Solar International and Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) will appeal a pair of May Court of International Trade decisions finding that various exporters circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand and Cambodia (see 2505160045). In both decisions, the trade court upheld Commerce's decision to put special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment the companies put into their Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant."

The Commerce Department was right to find that the material terms of exporter Toyo Kohan’s U.S. sales were finalized the earlier of each sale’s shipment date or invoice date, the government and petitioner Thomas Steel Strip Corp. each said July 11 (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).

The Court of International Trade's recent decision in Worldwide Door Components v. U.S. regarding a scope decision on aluminum extrusions "has no bearing" on the court's consideration of a pair of scope cases regarding freight rail couplers, petitioner the Coalition of Freight Rail Couplers said. Responding to importer Wabtec's notice of supplemental authority regarding the Worldwide decision, the petitioner said the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions is "distinct" from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on freight couplers at issue in the present case (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT #'s 23-00160, -00161).