Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. on Oct. 18 told the Court of International Trade that it has statutory and constitutional standing to challenge CBP's denial of its petition to modify the withhold release order imposed on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon and its subsidiaries (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

Chinese drone-maker DJI Technology Co. is challenging the Pentagon's designation of the firm as a Chinese military company, saying the agency applied the "wrong legal standard," mixed up individuals "with common Chinese names" and relied on "stale alleged facts and attenuated connections that fall short of demonstrating" the company is connected to the Chinese military (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S., D.D.C. # 24-02970).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 sent back the Commerce Department's de jure specificity finding regarding exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's exemption from Turkey's 0.2% Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax on foreign exchange transactions. Judge Gary Katzmann said that, in the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar, the agency failed to show that the exemption was limited by enterprise or industry.

The U.S. on Oct. 15 urged the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss a lawsuit from nonprofit advocacy group Texas for Israel and its members challenging the constitutionality of the Biden administration's West Bank-related sanctions authority.

Producers led by the U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition argued Oct. 16 that the ITC’s negligibility finding regarding aluminum extrusion exports from the Dominican Republic was only reachable because the ITC edited exporter Kingtom Aluminio’s data (see 2409040045) (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 23-00270).

Three wildlife advocacy groups on Oct. 15 asked the Court of International Trade for expedited briefing in their suit challenging various federal agencies' alleged failure to ban fish or fish products exported from fisheries that don't meet U.S. bycatch standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The groups claimed their case is ripe for expedited treatment since the "public interest in enforcement of the statute is particularly strong" and failure to expedite would make the requested relief moot (Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States, CIT # 24-00148).

Importer Cozy Comfort Co. and the U.S. submitted additional briefing ahead of their trial next week at the Court of International Trade on the tariff classification of The Comfy -- a wearable blanket imported by Cozy Comfort (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 15 limited the scope of the testimony that will be offered by two of the government's witnesses in a customs spat on the classification of The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by Cozy Comfort Co. Judge Stephen Vaden said fashion industry professional Patricia Concannon can testify only on topics related to the "sale, marketing, and merchandising of apparel," and that CBP national import specialist Renee Orsat "may not testify about opinions she formed during the Customs’ classification process."

The U.S. on Oct. 15 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss a suit from importer Retractable Technologies challenging the recent 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs on needles and syringes from China. The government said the trade court lacks jurisdiction to "second-guess the President's findings" and discretion in telling the U.S. trade representative to modify the Section 301 action and that the company failed to state a claim on which relief could be provided (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 contesting four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam, claiming that the questions "lacked sufficient information" that would have allowed her to make an "informed choice." Stoute-Francois added that some of the questions "unreasonably called for knowledge" that a test taker "would have no reasonable basis to possess" and that CBP "failed to adequately explain its decision to deny" her credit for some of the questions (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).