The U.S. moved to toss a group of importers' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for failure to identify a proper "jurisdictional grant or cause of action," arguing that the companies should have raised their claims before the Commerce Department first (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).
Attorneys at Crowell & Moring asked the Court of International Trade on Dec. 11 for a hearing regarding its motion for a preliminary injunction in its lead case seeking refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT # 25-00255).
The Court of International Trade "rewrote" a precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and "effectively nullified" three AD/CVD orders on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China when it held that MCBs that contain any amount of alumina are excluded from the orders, the Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee said (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1160).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
As lawsuits seeking refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs at the Court of International Trade continue to mount, lawyers remain uncertain of the refund process that would be followed should the Supreme Court strike down the tariffs, including whether refunds will come via judicial or administrative pathways.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Sigma Corp. dropped its antidumping duty scope case at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4, filing a stipulation of dismissal. Sigma initially filed the case in 2019 to contest the Commerce Department's scope ruling on the company's Safelet and Unilet brand fire-protection weld outlets under the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 1901080013). The decision to drop the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a jury's determination that Sigma is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its goods were subject to AD (see 2506240037) and a separate scope proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subjecting the goods to AD (Sigma v. United States, CIT # 19-00003).
As lawsuits seeking refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs at the Court of International Trade continue to mount, lawyers remain uncertain of the refund process that would be followed should the Supreme Court strike down the tariffs, including whether refunds will come via judicial or administrative pathways.
The U.S. filed a supplemental brief on Dec. 3 urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a Montana court's decision to transfer a group of tribal members' tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade. The government said the plaintiffs will be able to fully adjudicate their claims at the trade court and that the 9th Circuit can't review the Montana court's transfer order, since it's not a final order nor an "immediately appealable collateral order" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
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.