The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 to compel defendant Zhe “John” Liu, a steel hanger importer facing multiple duty evasion cases (see 2207220042, 2407310047 and 2407310047), to update his answer in one of those cases “to substantively respond” to the government’s complaint (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 23-00116).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 29 for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China regarding the use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The government said the Commerce Department's decision to use AFA on sales made by the respondent to U.S. customers who verified they didn't use the EBCP is inconsistent with the trade court's prior rulings on the program, which have bucked the use of AFA for U.S. buyers who have provided such verification (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).
Counsel for the Blackfeet Nation members challenging the imposition of tariffs on Native Americans asked the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the Nov. 5 oral argument session on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The members' attorney, Monica Tranel, asked for 15 minutes to argue her case during the hearing, saying her claim that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans isn't "addressed by the other parties" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty petitioner Titan Tire dropped its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).
The U.S. on Sept. 24 opposed a company’s motion to resume its case challenging the end of de minimis, arguing that the case still raises the same legal questions as V.O.S. Selections vs. U.S. despite a new executive order officially rescinding de minimis globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The Supreme Court on Sept. 24 granted the government's request for permission to use up to 3,000 additional words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Chief Justice John Roberts approved the application for 9,000 total words (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
CBP and trading company Letex Apparels on Sept. 25 settled Letex's negligence suit against the agency for damaging its imports in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport port (see 2505220057). The parties said they will be filing a stipulation of dismissal within the next 30 days (Letex Apparels Co. v. United States, C.D. Cal. # 2:25-04462).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case regarding the propriety of the Commerce Department's approach to rejecting untimely submissions. In August, the appellate court said Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan that was filed one hour and 41 minutes late (see 2508040031). The court said that, going forward, courts considering the agency's rejection of untimely documents shall consider the "remedial-not-punitive purpose" of AD/CVD laws, the burden imposed on Commerce that would result from accepting the submission, whether "any finality concerns would be implicated" and the "late-filing party's efforts" and its "reasons for the submission's untimeliness" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).