The Court of International Trade on May 14 granted the government's bid for a voluntary remand in exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider Jiaxing Hoshine's original petition to revoke or modify the WRO and allow the exporter to submit additional evidence to the record (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pushed forward, in a text-ony order, its hearing on whether to transfer the state of California's case against all tariff action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The hearing will now take place on May 27 at 1:30 p.m. EST (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade assigned the third major challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the same three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif. The case at issue, brought on behalf of 11 importers by libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation, was brought to challenge President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed on China for the fentanyl emergency (see 2504250038). The suit will now be heard by the same three judges hearing lawsuits against the IEEPA tariffs brought by another libertarian group and 12 U.S. states (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
The Court of International Trade on May 16 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's circumvention determinations on solar cells made by Trina Solar Science & Technology, Canadian Solar International and BYD. On the findings that Trina and Canadian Solar circumvented the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells via Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce permissibly placed dispositive weight on the amount invested into research and development in the companies' Thailand facilities to show that the operations in these facilities were "minor or insignificant." Baker also sustained the agency's finding that BYD circumvented the orders via Cambodia, similarly upholding Commerce's reliance on the level of R&D into BYD's Cambodia facilities.
A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Spector & Co. asked the Court of International Trade for relief from an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. The trade court dismissed the case, which is challenging CBP's classification of Spector's notebooks under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.60, since the suit was added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (see 2505050001) (Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).
The U.S. on May 12 opposed four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid for an injunction against tariffs imposed on Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's resolution of the tribal members' appeal of a Montana district court's order transferring the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The U.S. filed a second motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, in a customs penalty case after the Court of International Trade rejected the first bid for default judgment for failing to support its claim for a nearly $3.4 million penalty. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).