The U.S. agreed to stay the effective date of an import ban for swimming crab fisheries in Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka pending the National Marine Fisheries Service's reconsideration of the comparability findings for these fisheries (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).

The Trump administration filed its reply brief on Oct. 30 in the Supreme Court cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, addressing a host of arguments relating to the text of the IEEPA, all of the statute's requirements and the history of the measure (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

Mandi Rae Lumley, a member of the Yakama Native American tribe, filed suit against the imposition of tariffs against her, claiming any duties assessed against her violate the 1855 Yakama Treaty. Lumley, filing suit along with her company Tikkun Olam Holdings, said the Yakama Treaty lets members of the Yakama tribe "use any public highway to carry on free trade with any trading partner" (Mandi Rae Lumley v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, D.Or. # 3:25-02003).

Both the government and a group of seafood importers opposed three conservation groups' attempt to intervene in the seafood importers' case against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings on 240 fisheries across 46 nations, which will lead to an import ban from the fisheries on Jan. 1, 2026 (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).

The U.S. sought Rule 37 sanctions Oct. 29 against an importer of steel hangers after he failed to appear for depositions in several civil duty evasion cases. It asked the Court of International Trade for default judgments in all three cases (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT #s 22-00215, 23-00116, 24-00132).

Neal Katyal, partner at Milbank, will argue at the Supreme Court on behalf of the private parties during the Nov. 5 hearing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a representative of the parties confirmed (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

Battery importer Camel Energy urged the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 to expedite its case on CBP's exclusion of two of its entries. The company said "good cause" exists to speed up the case, since the importer "continues to incur damages in port and storage fees" and the exclusion of the goods "prevented Camel’s North American customers from receiving their products" (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).

The Commerce Department reasonably found that antidumping duty petitioner Habich GmbH isn't affiliated with its North American sales agent and calculated normal value based on Habich's Mexican sales in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Austrian strontium chromate, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 29.

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 Commerce Department improperly found that antidumping duty respondent Galvasid received but didn't report additional revenues for freight and insurance for its U.S. sales in the AD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products from Mexico, Galvasid argued in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Galvasid said the agency's application of partial adverse facts available to the company's "reported U.S. gross unit prices to account for the allegedly unreported revenues" was arbitrary and capricious (Galvasid v. United States, CIT # 25-00234).