The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

In seeking transfer of an International Emergency Economic Powers Act case to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said May 8 that such a transfer is necessary even when “there is doubt” about CIT’s jurisdiction. If a case’s merits must be decided first, this would “effectively” destroy CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over tariff matters, it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The U.S. opposed importer Inspired Ventures' bid for court-annexed mediation in the company's case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. The government said the dispute between Inspired and the U.S. is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

The Commerce Department decided on remand to replace existing Brazilian surrogate value information to value respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. with data from Malaysia. Submitting its third remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 9, Commerce dropped the respondent's AD rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from 16.17% to 14.35% (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00190).

Food storage importer Huhtamaki brought a May 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade saying CBP wrongly applied Section 301 duties to its clamshell container imports. Prior to entry, the importer said, it had undertaken “a months-long wild-goose chase” with CBP that ended with verbal confirmation the imports were excluded (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00050).

Domestic producers led by U.S. Steel said that importer Tenaris Bay City’s appeal of a Commerce Department industry support finding to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit repeated flawed, sometimes waived arguments (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 8 permitted the U.S. to file an additional reply brief in support of its motion to transfer a case challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Kent Wetherell gave the government until May 19 to file its reply addressing the plaintiffs' "merits arguments" (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained both the Commerce Department's 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China in a pair of decisions. Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld Commerce's surrogate value picks in both reviews.

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. and domestic producer Ecker Textiles this week defended the Court of International Trade’s ruling that an importer’s canvas banner matisse was covered by an antidumping duty order on artist canvas. They disagreed that the order was void for vagueness, saying at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the importer was trying to argue the order only covers the exact products made by domestic industries (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).