Importer Cyber Power System's accessory cables are general "power cables," not "telecommunications cables," the U.S. said in a cross-motion for judgment June 27 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 21-00200).
CBP unlawfully excluded importer Agri Spray Drones' entries of drone controllers without explanation, the importer argued in a June 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Agri Spray Drones v. United States, CIT # 25-00141).
The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss importer Tri State Honey's suit against CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments, arguing that the case was untimely filed. The government said that since the case had to be brought 180 days from CBP's protest denial, which was April 25, and Tri State filed suit on April 29, "the case is untimely and therefore barred" (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).
Importer Wabtec told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision calls into question the Commerce Department's practice of covering upstream components of goods actually imported or sold in the U.S. in antidumping cases. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on June 27, Wabtec said that while CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu didn't affirmatively resolve this question, his discussion is "highly relevant to the matter here" (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The Court of International Trade on June 23 proposed amendments to various of its practice rules and forms following recommendations from the court's Advisory Committee on Rules.