The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week stayed a proposed class action lawsuit contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the lead cases on the issue (see 2512230074) (Smirk & Dagger Games v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 1:25-03857).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed one of its appeals concerning a scope proceeding on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China, though the dismissal doesn't affect the government's related appeal on the same proceeding (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. #'s 26-1160, 26-1245).

After filing a joint motion to strike Thai shrimp exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co.’s reply brief supporting a motion for judgment (see 2512150041), the American Shrimp Processors Association and Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, along with the U.S., each filed separately in opposition to Soc Trang’s request for leave to amend its motion (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).

In a Dec. 16 response to several wildlife advocacy groups’ request that the Court of International Trade compel the Commerce Department to comply with a settlement agreement (see 2512150022), the government opposed an expedited schedule, saying the groups’ “own delay has contributed to the compressed time schedule” (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).

The Commerce Department properly found that exporter Universal Quartz was ineligible to participate in the agency's certification process for verifying that quartz surface products from Malaysia weren't subject to the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on the same goods from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply to importer AM Stone & Cabinets' motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government also said that despite AM Stone's claim that Commerce impermissibly used adverse facts available, the agency didn't apply AFA (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00241).

The Commerce Department lawfully decided not to use partial adverse facts available against respondent Prinx Chengshan Tire (Thailand) in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand regarding Prinx's reporting of its financial expense ratio calculation, the U.S. argued. Responding to petitioner United Steelworkers' motion for judgment, the government said Commerce "has broad discretion under the statutory scheme in deciding whether to apply an adverse inference" (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

The Commerce Department didn't reasonably support its decision to remove respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia's in-transit mattresses from its quarterly ratio calculations, since it relied on a "demonstrably inaccurate 'fact' to justify its decision," petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, argued (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

Exporters challenged several aspects of the Commerce Department’s investigation of ferrosilicon from Malaysia in a Dec. 17 motion for judgment (Om Materials (Sarawak) v. United States, CIT # 25-00130).

Importer Cyber Power Systems erred in analyzing whether its cables fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90, which provides for cables "of a kind used for telecommunications," by only looking to the "device and industry in which" its cables are used, the U.S. argued (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).