International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods CBP seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled April 11. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.

Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.

The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).

DOJ argued that its counterclaims against an importer in a tariff classification case on dried botanicals should be sustained by the Court of International Trade, despite similar counterclaims being rejected. In an April 6 brief, DOJ said that the importer, Second Nature Designs, claimed "only that the Government has failed to state a claim" and that "such a claim is barred by the statutory finality of liquidation" (see 2303030015) rather than making a jurisdictional argument (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).

Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)

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

The Court of International Trade dismissed on April 5 an antidumping duty case from Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. for failing to file a complaint "within the period prescribed by" the U.S. Code. The exporter filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's final results of the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan. The case was dismissed fir lack of prosecution under CIT rules (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00052).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's motion to expedite briefing in an appeal of a Court of International Trade decision to grant an injunction against AD cash deposits. Judge Kara Stoll said that Mid Continent can continue to self-expedite its own briefs, but that it "has not made a sufficient showing to shorten the time for" exporter and appellee Oman Fasteners (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).