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.
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 Court of International Trade last week denied several wildlife advocacy groups' request to expedite consideration of the groups' motion to enforce their settlement agreement with the Commerce Department regarding the importation of fish from all countries that don't have fishery regulations comparable to the United States' (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).
A group of importers opposed the government's motion to dismiss the companies' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for lack of jurisdiction or cause of action, arguing that their claims are properly being raised as counterclaims and don't need to independently qualify for the trade court's other jurisdictional grants (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).
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).
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).