The U.S. asked the Supreme Court for permission to use an additional 3,000 words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said a total of 9,000 words is needed given that the government will have to address "three separate response briefs, with an additional jurisdictional issue, on a highly expedited schedule" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

Corey Biazzo, a Charlotte-based civil litigation attorney, filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court on Sept. 21 in opposition to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Biazzo's submission is the first amicus brief filed in the case on the merits and argues that President Donald Trump's claimed tariff authority violates separation of powers principles (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:

Importer PF America dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on whether its flooring qualifies for an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs, according to a Sept. 19 notice of dismissal. The importer filed suit in 2022 to claim that its flooring of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3918.10.1000 qualifies for a Section 301 exclusion under secondary subheading 9903.88.46. Counsel for PF America didn't respond to a request for comment (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00060).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 19 after sustaining the Commerce Department's 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. The court said in July that Commerce permissibly used respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's Turkish lira-denominated sales to value the company's home-market sales (see 2507290048). While Habas said the agency had to follow its precedent by using the respondent's dollar-denominated sales, the court held that Commerce had no such obligation, since Habas failed to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices" (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will consider Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's appeal regarding one question on the April 2018 customs broker license exam without holding oral argument, according to a Sept. 19 notice from the court. The court said the case will be submitted to a three-judge panel on the court who will decide the appeal on the briefs only (Chae v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1379).

The U.S. agreed to classify importer Robert Bosch's human machine interface controllers under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 8517.62.00, according to a stipulated judgment filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 19. CBP initially classified the human machine interface controllers under HTS subheading 8543.70.99, which is dutiable at 2.6% and covers other electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions and not specified elsewhere in the chapter. Subheading 8517.62.00 provides for "Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus" (Robert Bosch v. United States, CIT # 20-00028).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case. The mandate comes after the court sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economic policy in AD proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged (see 2507280046). The court said its long line of cases upholding the policy confirms its validity, adding that, even if those cases didn't exist, the NME policy is an evidentiary presumption, which doesn't require notice-and-comment rulemaking (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The U.S. and domestic producer Deer Park Glycine jointly agreed Sept. 17 to dismiss the producer’s 2024 case against a scope ruling request denial (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. said on Sept. 17 it doesn't oppose Chinese exporter Ninestar's motion to amend its complaint in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, though the government said it "reserves its right to move to dismiss one or both additional counts" in the amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).