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).

The U.S. asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the latest International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade and to stay briefing on the companies' challenging the tariffs' motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the transfer motion. The government said four courts have found that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, while just one has "declined to transfer the case to the CIT or dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).

The Commerce Department cannot investigate "transnational" subsidies, countervailing duty respondent Kukdo Chemical argued in a July 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resins from South Korea, Kukdo said it's challenging "any and all substantive aspects of Commerce's" finding that the company received a countervailable subsidy via the provision of Epichlorohydrin (ECH) for less than adequate remuneration from China (Kukdo Chemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00146).

Responding July 18 to New Jersey resident Brandon Chen’s challenge of 11 questions on the April 2022 Customs Brokers License Exam (see 2411270026), the U.S. said CBP was right to determine Chen failed to achieve a passing 75% score (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

There may be a "bifurcated" process for duty refund should the plaintiffs prevail in litigation over the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade lawyer said. That could include a court-ordered process in addition to a separate administrative process because of the volume of claims that will arise should the courts decide that IEEPA is not an appropriate authority for tariffs.

Challenging the result of a circumvention inquiry, Vietnamese exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. said July 21 that its decision to track its inputs’ country of origin “manually,” based on “transaction documents which recorded the supplier’s address,” didn’t warrant application of adverse facts available (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).