The International Trade Commission disagreed Sept. 24 that it was basing its finding of critical circumstances for pea protein from China on the Commerce Department’s own independent critical circumstances determination (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

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

Countervailing duty petitioner Titan Tire dropped its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).

The Supreme Court on Sept. 24 granted the government's request for permission to use up to 3,000 additional words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Chief Justice John Roberts approved the application for 9,000 total words (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

CBP and trading company Letex Apparels on Sept. 25 settled Letex's negligence suit against the agency for damaging its imports in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport port (see 2505220057). The parties said they will be filing a stipulation of dismissal within the next 30 days (Letex Apparels Co. v. United States, C.D. Cal. # 2:25-04462).

CBP and trading company Letex Apparels on Sept. 25 settled Letex's negligence suit against the agency for damaging its imports in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport port (see 2505220057). The parties said they will be filing a stipulation of dismissal within the next 30 days (Letex Apparels Co. v. United States, C.D. Cal. # 2:25-04462).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 23 directed the Court of International Trade to transfer a certain physical exhibit to the appeals court in importer Cozy Comfort's customs case on the classification of its oversized pullover, The Comfy. Cozy moved the Federal Circuit without opposition to transfer a physical sample of The Comfy and its retail packaging to the court so the sample is "available for inspection by this Court and the parties at oral argument" (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).

CBP told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 22 that communications between it and Apple didn't show that the agency coordinated with Apple to skirt a limited exclusion order (LEO) from the International Trade Commission that bars the importation of Apple Watch products that infringe Masimo's patents (Masimo v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, D.D.C. # 25-02749).