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

A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. is increasingly requiring companies to enter into mitigation agreements before approving a deal, and those agreements are getting more complex, said a former senior government official who worked on CFIUS cases. And although some companies fear the ongoing CFIUS review of Japan’s Nippon Steel signals that the committee could be veering away from its traditional national security focus, the former official said he’s not expecting the Nippon Steel case to spark a trend of politically motivated reviews.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 30 granted exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s application for more time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in an antidumping duty scope case. The high court sent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a letter notifying the court of the extension on Oct. 7 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

Importer Retractable Technologies on Oct. 8 asked the Court of International Trade to quash the government's motion seeking corporate testimony from the company in Retractable's suit on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. Retractable said an upcoming evidentiary hearing before the trade court will give the government the information it seeks and that reasonable time wasn't allowed for the company to respond to the subpoena (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association filed its own amicus curiae brief Oct. 8 also supporting ITC in its current appeal of Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden’s refusal to redact a public opinion the agency worries could contain business proprietary information (see 2312200070). Its brief follows another submitted by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association a day prior (see 2410080055) (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288) (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

Importer UniChem on Oct. 8 opposed the government's bid for leave to add correspondence between CBP and the DEA to the record of a case on seized weight loss dietary supplements, after the U.S. was confronted about its previous failure to add such communications to the record during oral argument at the Court of International Trade. The government is also seeking to respond to UniChem's claims regarding whether the court has jurisdiction now that CBP has allegedly seized the goods (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Customs and International Trade Bar Association filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the Court of International Trade’s refusal to redact an December 2023 opinion sustaining an affirmative injury finding regarding mattress imports (see 2312200070) (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288) (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 30 - Oct. 6: