The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 7-13:

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller must respond to allegations of forced labor used in imported cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire by seven major chocolate companies, the International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) said in its Aug. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit aims to force DHS and CBP to issue a decision in response to a 2020 petition filed by IRAdvocates along with Corporate Accountability Lab, and the University of California Irvine Law School's Human Rights Clinic (UCI) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas and Troy Miller, CIT # 23-00165).

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

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

The U.S. filed its third motion for an extension of time to file its reply brief in a suit on how to value cookware imports from Meyer Corp. Submitting the consent motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, DOJ lawyers said their heavy workload warranted the extension of time, which would make the brief due on Aug. 31 instead of Aug. 17. The three extensions together amount to 74 days from the brief's initial due date (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).

The government filed for an unopposed remand at the Court of International Trade of a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. The U.S. said that if the remand is granted, the Commerce Department intends "to treat Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in its administrative review." Counsel for plaintiff Optima Steel consented to the motion, while counsel for petitioner Nucor Corp. took no position on the motion (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).

CBP's failure to timely release documents in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation deprived importer Phoenix Metal of its right to defend against the agency's allegation that it transshipped in order to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2303030049), Phoenix said in an Aug. 9 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The company said it had no chance to respond to allegations of evasion before "severe enforcement measures" were put in place, adding that CBP's "only purpose" in EAPA investigations "is to operate in the shadows and shun inconveniences like the [Administrative Procedure Act] and due process of law" (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).

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

Retail giant Target Corp. will appeal a July Court of International Trade decision, which refused to invalidate a prior court order telling CBP to reliquidate Target's metal-top ironing tables. The notice of appeal says the retailer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, Judge Leo Gordon said that if Target succeeded, it would call into question whether a party at the court could obtain "full and complete relief," turning the clock back over 40 years on the Article III court powers (see 2307200049) (Target Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00162).