Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 dismissed two cases from importer ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada for lack of prosecution. The cases were placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." The lawsuits concerned CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel products should be excluded from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, #s 21-00342, -00343).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
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 following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana rejected four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid to get the Montana court to reconsider its decision to transfer a challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen said that now that the trade court has made an "express finding of its own jurisdiction," when it vacated the executive orders imposed by President Donald Trump implementing tariffs under IEEPA, "the Court concludes that transfer remains the appropriate action" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on May 23 denied the government's motion to dismiss four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's appeal of a Montana court's decision to transfer a case challenging various tariff actions to the Court of International Trade. The appellate court also stayed proceedings until the Montana court rules on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
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. District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case filed by four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the tariffs on Canada issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen held that two cases establishing the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, confirm CIT's exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving IEEPA, given that IEEPA has the "same operative language as that contained in the TWEA" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The Montana Farmers Union moved to intervene in a case brought by four members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe challenging various trade action taken by President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The agriculture trade group said it qualifies for intervention as a "matter of right," alternatively arguing that the court should permit the group to intervene even if it doesn't have the right to intervene (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).