The U.S.'s bid for more time to respond to importer Eteros Technologies USA's motion for judgment should be denied since the Department of Justice has not shown good cause for the extension, Eteros said in an Oct. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns CBP's seizure of Eteros' motor frame assemblies -- part of a marijuana and plant harvesting unit -- under the premise that the assemblies constitute "drug paraphernalia."

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), was denied a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an Oct. 6 order. Since CJE "cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief," the move for a PI was denied. CJE failed to show that Commerce acted ultra vires and in excess of its authority, Judge Reggie Walton said (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-01798).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.

Lawyers for LG Electronics' bid to overturn the International Trade Commission's restrictions on their participation in a solar safeguard review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the ITC argued in an Oct. 4 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Even if CIT had jurisdiction, the case is premature since there has been no "justiciable final agency action," the brief said.

Two Alaska shipping companies renewed their bid for an expedited temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments found to be in violation of the Jones Act, in an Oct. 1 motion at the Alaska U.S. District Court. The court recently denied the companies' bid for the TRO on the grounds that they had not properly satisfied all the conditions to qualify for an exception to the Jones Act, finding that if the conditions were not met, the companies were likely to fail on the merits of the case (see 2109290075).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The government stands by its arguments that the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods are “presidential actions” that are “unreviewable” by the court, the Department of Justice said in a late filing on Oct. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The Commerce Department wants a voluntary remand to reconsider a bevy of blanket Section 232 exclusion denials it issued to Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, the agency told the Court of International Trade in a Sept. 30 filing (Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00093). Judge Miller Baker then stayed the time for plaintiffs to respond to this remand motion “until further order of the court,” in an order. The judge then instructed all parties to let the court know their position on court-annexed mediation to settle the issue of remand.

The Commerce Department needs more information before it will consider allegations that solar cell imports from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing antidumping duties on China, the agency said in a Sept. 29 letter. Penned to Timothy Brightbill, lead counsel for an anonymous group of domestic U.S. solar cell manufacturers that seeks the inquiry, the letter requested a slew of information from the domestic producers to clear threshold concerns, including the full name and address of each member of the anonymous coalition.

A conflict of interest allegation did not cause an antidumping duty investigation respondent to untimely file its questionnaire responses, the Commerce Department argued in a Sept. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to Tau-Ken Temir's brief explaining that this allegation was the reason for the delay in filing the responses, Commerce said that it did not abuse its discretion when it found that the petitioner did not interfere with TKT's ability to file the questionnaire responses (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).