The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
The Court of International Trade on May 6 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Russia. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's benchmark calculations for the provision of phosphate rock mining rights for less than adequate remuneration and natural gas for LTAR programs. The judge said Commerce improperly excluded data on phosphate rock taken from sedimentary reserves and erred in using sales of natural gas from Kazakhstan to Russia. However, Restani sustained the use of data only from 2021 to calculate the mining rights subsidy, calculation of respondent JSC Apatit's phosphate rock cost of sales plus profit, and use of adverse facts available to find that Apatit's natural gas suppliers were government authorities.
The Commerce Department appropriately focused on the current availability of domestic steel as opposed to the availability at the time an importer placed a foreign order when considering Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said the focus on current availability is in line with the "purpose of the Section 232 import measures," which are meant to "increase and improve domestic capacity over time" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).
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).