The Court of International Trade ruled April 29 that importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks, which chemically convert nitrous oxide from industrial pollutant emitters into nitrogen and water, were filters, not “other” catalytic reactors. It acknowledged that Mitsubishi had defined a Section 301 exclusion for “other” catalytic reactors based on the products, but said the importer had been on notice that its products might not be covered by the language of the exclusion because the language of the exclusions themselves, not product descriptions contained in the exclusion requests, define what's subject to the exclusions (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 28 denied a motion from four members of the Blackfeet Nation that sought to keep the established schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada after the Montana court transferred the matter to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. United States, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
Judge Stephen Vaden last week responded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's invitation to respond to the International Trade Commission's petition for writ of mandamus regarding Vaden's decision finding the ITC's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful. Vaden said the ITC lacks standing to petition for mandamus review, since the information belongs to the parties taking part in the injury proceeding and not the commission, and that the petition fails on the merits (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian legal advocacy group that recently brought a case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on behalf of 11 importers, has had "preliminary" talks with the other advocacy groups that have brought cases challenging the tariffs on whether to proceed with separate cases. Molly Nixon, attorney at the foundation, told us she's "in touch" with the two other groups who have brought cases against the tariffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center, but that nothing is confirmed about whether the groups will combine cases.
International trade attorney Elyssa Kutner has resigned from Sidley Austin, according to a notice Kutner filed at the Court of International Trade. Kutner joined Sidley in 2020 as an associate, moving to counsel in January 2024. At the firm, she covered U.S. customs law and import compliance. Prior to joining Sidley, she worked as an associate at ArentFox and Neville Peterson.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A third case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been filed at the Court of International Trade by a group of 11 companies, most of which make tabletop games. The companies, led by clothing maker Princess Awesome LLC, argue that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, Trump's declared national emergencies fail to meet the "statutory requirement of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'" and IEEPA unconstitutionally transfers legislative power to the president (Princess Awesome v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00078).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Under the Weather on April 23 dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade after the trade court refused to let the company add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods" to its complaint (see 2504150053) (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).