The following lawsuit has been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Three conservation advocacy groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Animal Welfare Institute, moved to intervene in a case from a group of seafood product companies against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations, which will lead to an import ban from the fisheries. The advocacy groups also moved the Court of International Trade for an expedited consideration of their intervention motion so that they can take part in the court's expedited consideration of the seafood companies' motion for a preliminary injunction against the comparability findings (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
Two more legal scholars on Oct. 22 added their amici curiae brief to a stack before the Supreme Court for its upcoming ruling on Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections. They focused on the danger an unlimited executive tariff authority would pose to the separation of powers (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion to lift the stay of its case contesting President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold for goods from China. In a text-only order, the trade court said the company's motion for partial summary judgment is stayed pending resolution of V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, the lead case on whether Trump can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which is currently being briefed before the Supreme Court (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The Supreme Court on Oct. 23 expanded the time for oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, giving each side 40 minutes to make their cases. However, the court said the parties challenging the tariffs, which are two groups of importers and one group of 12 U.S. states, shall split their time evenly between the private parties and the U.S. states (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 denied the government's motion to stay judicial proceedings in a lawsuit from various seafood importers against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations. While the U.S. said the case should be stayed due to the federal government shutdown, Judge Joseph Laroski said the government's concerns regarding the shutdown, "while substantial, do not outweigh the urgency of judicial review" in this case due to the harm alleged by the importers (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
The Commerce Department didn't properly support its decision to base antidumping duty respondent Toyo Kohan's date of sale for the company's U.S. sales on its shipment date in the 2022-23 review of the AD order on diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan, the Court of International Trade held in a decision issued Oct. 23.
Antidumping duty petitioner Domtar dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on thermal paper from Germany. Domtar filed a notice of dismissal on Oct. 21, which the court granted the same day. Counsel for Domtar didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Domtar v. United States, CIT # 25-00213).
The International Trade Commission "largely ignored the market conditions" and failed to give meaning to the term "significant" when assessing the volume of imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, importers led by Tenaris Bay City said in their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2034).
The Commerce Department reasonably decided to include two types of products made by antidumping duty respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen in its calculation of BGH's home market sales, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 22. Judge Mark Barnett said the respondent's attempt to remove these two products from the normal value calculation failed, since it necessarily required the addition of an end-use requirement in the scope of the AD order on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany.