The Commerce Department properly found that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Oct. 1.
The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Commerce Department said its ACCESS system isn't receiving regular updates due to the federal government shutdown, which began on Oct. 1, the start of the 2026 fiscal year. All pending submissions in proceedings before the agency should be submitted by their current due date, the agency said.
Importer PF America dropped another case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 duties on its vinyl flooring imports. The importer entered the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3916.20.0020 and 9903.88.17, though CBP classified the goods under subheadings 3916.20.0091 and 9903.88.02, subjecting the flooring to Section 301 duties. Recently, PF America dropped a separate suit also seeking Section 301 exclusions on its flooring entries under a similar secondary subheading (see 2509190050) (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00255).
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week for permission to take part in the oral argument in a case on former Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission. Dhuey noted that a motions panel at the CAFC previously said his right to participate in oral argument shall be decided by the merits panel, and that the now-assigned merits panel has yet to issue a decision on the amicus' right to take part in the hearing (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit last week against wire garment hanger importer LGA Trading and its director, Galo Goya, at the Court of International Trade, seeking over $3.1 million as a penalty for negligence and over $1.9 million in unpaid duties (United States v. LGA Trading, CIT # 25-00214).
Exporter Camel Group filed its motion for judgment against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's decision not to remove the company from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing that the decision wasn't backed by substantial evidence or supported by a reasoned explanation. Camel said FLETF used the wrong standard of review in assessing its petition for removal from the UFLPA Entity List, arguing that the task force should have used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of a "reasonable cause to believe" standard" (Camel Group v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 to compel defendant Zhe “John” Liu, a steel hanger importer facing multiple duty evasion cases (see 2207220042, 2407310047 and 2407310047), to update his answer in one of those cases “to substantively respond” to the government’s complaint (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 23-00116).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 29 for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China regarding the use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The government said the Commerce Department's decision to use AFA on sales made by the respondent to U.S. customers who verified they didn't use the EBCP is inconsistent with the trade court's prior rulings on the program, which have bucked the use of AFA for U.S. buyers who have provided such verification (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).