Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on April 22 granted a motion to dismiss importer Pay Less’ challenge to the International Trade Commission’s affirmative critical circumstances finding regarding Burmese-origin mattresses. The importer never filed an entry of appearance in the underlying injury investigation, and it overall failed to clear the “low bar” required to establish itself as a party to the proceeding, he ruled (Pay Less Here v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 24-00152).
The U.S. moved to transfer the State of California's lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. With the April 17 motion, the government has now moved to transfer all three cases filed in federal district courts to the trade court (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 21. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen held that the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations.
The Court of International Trade on April 16 held that it doesn't have jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to hear claims from a group of importers that the Commerce Department failed to find a changed circumstance or open new shipper reviews in an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes covering entries during 1995-96. Sustaining the agency's investigation results on remand, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also held that the intervenors don't have standing to sue, since their claims aren't related to those of the other parties with standing.
The U.S. defended its bid to transfer a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 232 to the Court of International Trade, arguing that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs' convenience in keeping the suit in Montana is "irrelevant" to CIT's jurisdiction. Filing a reply brief on April 16, the government said the plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, "ignore or misunderstand" CIT's "specialized nature and the fact that that court may also review the implementation of executive orders in cases within its jurisdiction" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
In support of its motion to dismiss, the U.S. pointed out that importer Houston Shutters had directly conceded in its reply (see 2504010074) that jurisdiction wasn’t unavailable under 28 U.S C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).
The Court of International Trade dismissed exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s challenge to CBP's issuance of a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries. However, in a confidential decision issued on April 16, Judge Claire Kelly denied the government's motion to dismiss Hoshine's second claim, which contested CBP's refusal to modify the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
The lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs has been assigned to a three-judge panel. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani will hear the case, according to an order from CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in importer Simplified's lawsuit against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China to support the government's motion to transfer the matter, currently before a Florida federal district court, to the Court of International Trade. The brief said the trade court's work is "important" but "hardly well known," making it unsurprising that some parties in IEEPA cases "have either not recognized how § 1581(i) applies to IEEPA, or have chosen not to press the matter" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).