The Court of International Trade on June 14 dismissed a suit from three conservation groups seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of the totoaba fish, which threatens the endangered vaquita porpoise. The parties reached a settlement in April under which the agency found that Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (see 2306020054). Due to this finding, the U.S. could impose an embargo on any goods coming from Mexico.
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The Court of International Trade on June 14 granted importer Maple Leaf Marketing's bid to redesignate the U.S.'s counterclaim as a defense in a customs spat on the classification of boronized steel tubing. Dismissing Maple Leaf's bid to dismiss as moot, Judge Claire Kelly cited the court's Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S. decision to find that nowhere in Congress' scheme on the classification of goods does the legislative body explicitly let the U.S. "assert a counterclaim challenging CBP's classification."
Three conservation groups moved to dismiss their suit at the Court of International Trade seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of endangered wildlife. The groups ditched the suit after Interior determined Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which could lead to a ban on imports of Mexican wildlife (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00339).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 15-21 and 22-28:
Fourteen types of frozen fruit mixtures, five of which contain vegetable ingredients, should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5%, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Stephen Vaden said the merchandise is properly classified under heading 0811 since the term "Fruit ... frozen" describes these goods in whole.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 8-14:
The European Commission this week proposed to reform its customs system, including by creating a single interface called the EU Customs Data Hub that will allow for the submission of all customs information on imports. Under the plan, the EU also would create an EU Customs Authority, which it said would boost cooperation between customs surveillance and law enforcement authorities at the EU and member state level, and would eliminate the de minimis threshold for imports under $162.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 1-7:
While the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), an alternative to the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body, may work for the nations that want an appellate level of review of WTO panel decisions, it doesn't necessarily make sense for U.S. purposes, said Jamieson Greer, former chief of staff for the U.S. trade representative and partner at King & Spalding. Speaking at a May 8 Federalist Society event, Greer said that if the U.S. wanted another level of review at the WTO, the government would simply just start staffing up the AB again rather than pursue a solution under the MPIA.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 24-30.