OtterBox can't get refunds on a prior disclosure it made on imports of smartphone covers, even though it prevailed in a Court of International Trade case on entries of the same product, the Department of Justice said in a June 25 reply brief to OtterBox's motion to enforce the court's judgment. DOJ said CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure in dispute, making OtterBox's bid an attempt to get a refund to which it is not entitled (Otter Products, LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00269).

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

The Department of Justice seeks a stay from the Court of International Trade of the liquidation of PrimeSource's entries pending DOJ's appeal of CIT's decision that struck down President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum “derivatives,” it said in a June 9 motion for partial stay of judgment.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from June 21-25 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

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

An in lieu of verification (ILV) questionnaire cannot substitute for an actual verification of information submitted as part of a countervailing duty proceeding, Turkish exporter Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi said in a June 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a CVD investigation of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, Teknik said that Commerce did not provide adequate notice that the exporter's filings were deficient as is required (Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT 21-00251).

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

A customs case from importer Strategic Import Supply should not be reconsidered in light of new evidence since it is merely an attempt by the plaintiff to "relitigate arguments already raised," the Department of Justice said in a June 23 response to SIS's motion to reconsider the case. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the high burden for reconsideration, DOJ said in the Court of International Trade, and also is not entitled to amend its complaint to change the jurisdictional grounds of its claim (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

A withhold release order on silicon produced by Hoshine Silicon Industry Co., Ltd., a company located in China's Xinjiang province, and its subsidiaries, was based on credible reports that workers were subject to intimidation and threats, and that they had their movements restricted, the acting CBP commissioner said during a press conference June 24. The material produced by Hoshine is a primary input in solar panels.