The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 7 largely kept alive a case from importer Eteros Technologies USA and its CEO Aaron McKellar against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. Judge Kymberly Evanson said the court has jurisdiction to review the revocation of McKellar's NEXUS membership, which lets pre-screened travelers accelerate their entrance into the U.S., and that the case isn't mooted by CBP's vacatur of an order banning McKellar from entering the U.S. for five years (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
The Commerce Department illegally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity is de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 8. Judge Jane Restani likened electricity provision to other "generally available and widely used" subsidies, such as "roads, bridges, schools, highways," that the agency is barred from countervailing under the CVD statute.
Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).
The International Trade Commission last week stuck by its determination that the U.S. industry is materially injured by phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, issuing a remand predetermination at the Court of International Trade. Commissioner David Johanson dissented from the decision, incorporating his dissenting views he issued with the commission's initial injury finding and first remand decision (OCP S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The Commerce Department correctly found that processors and producers of oil country tubular goods weren't double-counted in the agency's domestic production calculation underlying the antidumping duty investigations on OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5, the government added that importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to raise a host of arguments before Commerce they now attempt to bring before the appellate court (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
A group of exporters, led by Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum, filed a stipulation of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 in their case against the Commerce Department's administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China for the 2022 review period. The companies brought the case to contest Commerce's use of UNComtrade data as the benchmark for assessing the adequacy of remuneration for the provision of aluminum ingot. The exporters also challenged the use of adverse facts available in relation to the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum v. United States, CIT # 24-00231).
CBP improperly classified importer Air Distribution USA's shisha molasses, also known as "hookah tobacco," as a type of "smoking tobacco" and erroneously subjected the shisha molasses to federal excise taxes on "pipe tobacco," Air Distribution argued in a complaint last month at the Court of International Trade (Air Distribution USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00063).
The Commerce Department stuck by its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) in its Aug. 4 remand results at the Court of International Trade. However, the agency swapped the surrogate labor data it used in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Chinese chlorinated isos, which led to small downward adjustments in the AD rates for the two mandatory respondents (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
A petition from two importers for the Supreme Court to review whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for tariffs will be considered by the high court on Sept. 29. After briefing concluded on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, the matter was distributed for the court's Sept. 29 conference, where it will determine which cases make up its October 2025 term (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation for the importer's success in a previous CIT case concerning the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, since it doesn't arise out of a "law of the United States providing for" trade-related action.