Importer Meyer Corporation U.S. and the U.S. traded supplemental briefs last week following a bench trial at the Court of International Trade on whether Meyer's cookware imports are entitled to first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation U.S. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).
Eteros Says Declaratory Relief Needed to Thwart 'Retaliatory' Action Against Successful CIT Litigant
Importer Eteros Technologies USA last week defended the notion that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear the company's case alleging that CBP illegally retaliated against the company for its success before the trade court. Eteros said CBP's claimed basis for taking the allegedly retaliatory action against Eteros and its executives, that the company is "aiding and abetting narcotics trafficking," is "factually baseless" and "legally impermissible" in light of the trade court's ruling in Eteros' past case before CIT (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Litigants in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed a proposed briefing schedule before the appellate court that would conclude briefing by July 18 (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA filed a motion for judgment June 5 after a host of its other claims against the U.S. were dismissed in January (see 2501220064). It said that the Commerce Department wrongly rejected two of its Section 232 exclusion requests by claiming an authority based on national security that it didn’t actually have and two more by treating prospective presidential proclamations as retrospective (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 11 stayed the Court of International Trade's directives in two cases concerning the International Trade Commission's redaction of certain business proprietary information. In addition, the appellate court designated the lawsuits as "companion cases" to be heard by the same merits panel and appointed Alex Moss, executive director at the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, to be amicus counsel to defend the trade court's rulings (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).
The Court of International Trade on June 11 held that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade decision vacating all International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff action likely doesn't signal a win for either side on the merits of the issue, various attorneys told us. In addition, the court's move to set a July 31 oral argument date and have all active judges hear the case indicates a decision will likely be issued in August, the attorneys said.
The Court of International Trade on June 12 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the countervailing duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce complied with his remand instructions by prorating the countervailing duty set on exporter The Ancientree Cabinet to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. As a result, Commerce lowered Ancientree's CVD cash deposit rate from 13.33% to 5.06% and calculated individual CVD rates for the exporter's U.S. buyers, though the agency said the cash deposit rate has been superseded by the cash deposit rate given to Ancientree based on the 2022 review of the CVD order.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: