The America First Legal Foundation, an advocacy group aligned with President Donald Trump, argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia got the question of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction wrong in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Filing an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation provided an alternative basis for the appellate court to find that the case belongs at CIT: IEEPA provides for embargoes for reasons other than the "protection of the public health or safety" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

CBP's decision to substitute the International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor for the "statutory definition of forced labor" is "arbitrary and capricious" and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing a reply in support of its motion for judgment to the Court of International Trade on June 30, Kingtom argued that while CBP can use the ILO indicators "as part of its framework for determining if forced labor exists," it can't wholesale swap the indicators for the term's statutory definition (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The Court of International Trade on July 3 granted importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations' motion to include three documents the Commerce Department declined to put on the record in the antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said he needed the three documents to be on the record to properly review whether Commerce permissibly rejected them in the investigation. Katzmann also declined to consolidate Bridgetstone's suit with another case challenging the same AD investigation filed by the petitioner, United Steelworkers.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 23-29:

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

The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss importer Tri State Honey's suit against CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments, arguing that the case was untimely filed. The government said that since the case had to be brought 180 days from CBP's protest denial, which was April 25, and Tri State filed suit on April 29, "the case is untimely and therefore barred" (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).

Importer Wabtec told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision calls into question the Commerce Department's practice of covering upstream components of goods actually imported or sold in the U.S. in antidumping cases. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on June 27, Wabtec said that while CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu didn't affirmatively resolve this question, his discussion is "highly relevant to the matter here" (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).