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

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Sept. 9-15 and 16-22:

A German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials responded Sept. 20 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a U.S. claim that the Commerce Department's decision to calculate certain of the exporter’s production costs for a review using the items' sales values was rational because the figures “came from Dillinger’s own books and records” (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The Court of International Trade granted Sept. 20 an importer’s consent motion to stay for 180 days proceedings brought against it by the U.S. The importer said in its motion, filed Sept. 18, that the parties were working to settle the case, which alleges the importer dodged antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings by misclassifying its entries (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).

The Court of International Trade held oral argument Sept. 19 in a case alleging that CBP wrongly detained an entry of weight loss dietary supplements for almost a year (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

A Texas anti-porn law violates the First Amendment by requiring websites to verify users’ ages, the Free Speech Coalition said at the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief Monday on behalf of the FSC, a pornography industry trade association. The U.S. District Court in Austin agreed in August 2023 to block the law (HB-1181), one day before its Sept. 1 effective date. U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra found the law likely violates the First Amendment rights of adults trying to access constitutionally protected speech. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated the injunction, finding the age-verification requirements constitutional. SCOTUS in July agreed to hear the case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (docket 23-1122) (see 2407020033). “Under strict scrutiny, this is a straightforward case,” said the coalition’s brief: The Texas law “is both overinclusive and underinclusive, and it fails to pursue its objective with the means least restrictive of adults’ protected speech.” The coalition added, “Restoring the preliminary injunction … would not undermine genuine efforts to limit minors’ access to sexually inappropriate material.” Adults “have a First Amendment right to read about sexual health, see R-rated movies, watch porn, and otherwise access information about sex if they want to," said Vera Eidelman, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project staff attorney. “They should be allowed to exercise that right as they see fit, without having to worry about exposing their personal identifying information in the process.”

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

Importer Worldwide Distribution dropped its bid to participate in an appeal of an antidumping duty review after failing to file a notice of appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had asked the company whether it sought to take part in the case as an appellant, and, if so, what the court's jurisdiction is over such an appeal (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

The U.S. “respectfully disagree[d]” with recent Court of International Trade cases that have held that the government cannot hear counterclaims seeking to reclassify products under a new heading. These holdings, it said Sept. 13, go against 28 U.S.C. Section 1583, “its legislative history, and decades of consistent practice immediately following its enactment” (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

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