The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lacks authority to review a Montana court's order transferring a case from four Blackfeet Nation tribe members against various trade actions taken by President Donald Trump to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. argued on May 1. Moving the court to dismiss the case, the government said the appellate court "reviews final orders, but an order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for litigation to continue in another court is necessarily not final" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
After Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu remanded, for the second time, a de facto specificity finding regarding a tax penalties and fines relief program used by Moroccan exporter OCP that he called “absurd,” the Commerce Department reluctantly reversed course April 29 (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116)..
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif heard oral arguments April 30 regarding an affirmative evasion finding for countertop importer Vanguard Trading Co. Among other things, the case challenges the strict liability standard CBP has established for importers regarding evasion and CBP’s ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during EAPA investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).
The Court of International Trade on April 29 told the 12 states challenging President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act they may file a brief laying out their position on a group of five importers' motion for summary judgment against Trump's reciprocal tariffs by May 8. The court said in a text-only order that the brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, doesn't bar the states from filing their own motion at a later date, nor will the brief be construed as a "waiver or forfeiture of any claim or argument."
The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer the power to impose tariffs, California argued at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Responding to the government's motion to transfer the state's challenge -- which centers on President Donald Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs -- to the Court of International Trade, California argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, since "IEEPA does not provide for tariffs" (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
CBP will pay refunds of Section 301 duties paid on importer CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing's aluminum road wheels, the importer and the U.S. said in a stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 30. The judgment said CITIC Dicastal's wheels were subject to an exclusion from a 10% Section 301 duty the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for wheels imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.4545, which provides for aluminum wheels for motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 (CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00159).
The Court of International Trade committed "clear error" in classifying Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 without performing a GRI 2(a) analysis, the U.S. argued. Defending its bid for a rehearing before the trade court, the government said Honeywell's claim that there's no "significant flaw" in the CIT's decision ignores the fact that the court at no point found the brake segments to be a "finished part" (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida set a May 12 deadline for parties to file amicus briefs in a case brought by importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, against President Donald Trump's tariffs on China imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the company opened its lawsuit, the U.S. moved to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (see 2504150022). So far in the case, only one amicus brief has been filed, and it came from the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation, which sought to defend the government's bid to transfer the case (see 2504160047) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, defended Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission in one of his decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an April 28 brief, Dhuey argued that 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(2)(B) explicitly gave Vaden discretion to disclose the contested materials (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).