The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Cozy Comfort Company asked the Court of International Trade to designate its lead case on the classification of The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a test case (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT #s 23-00003, 22-00173).
The Commerce Department continues to conflate "disproportionality" with "disparity" in its de facto specificity finding regarding a Korean electricity subsidy, the South Korean government told the Court of International Trade earlier this month. The trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have routinely found that these two concepts are distinct, yet Commerce ignores the courts' instruction when finding that the Korean steel industry, when paired with two unrelated industries, consumes a disproportionate amount of an electricity subsidy, the brief said (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department reasonably found on remand in a case on a new shipper review that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued. Filing comments in support of Commerce's remand decision at the Court of International Trade, the petitioner said the remand determination "fully and appropriately responds to the Court’s opinion" and is otherwise legal and supported by the record (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
Importer Amoena USA filed a pair of supplemental briefs at the Court of International Trade in its customs case on the classification of its mastectomy brassieres (Amoena USA v. United States, CIT # 20-00100).
Uzbekistan national and resident Saodat Narzieva sued the Office of Foreign Assets Control and OFAC Director Bradley Smith Dec. 2, saying the agency mistakenly included her in an April 2023 round of Russia-related sanctions, causing her "substantial" harm.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Dec. 29 filed responses to various motions for preliminary injunctions in cases challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that the Court of International Trade's decision in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection settles the issue.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process (see 2412190059).