The Court of International Trade ruled April 22 that filling out a single mandatory importer questionnaire response at the beginning of an International Trade Commission injury investigation isn’t enough for an importer to establish itself as a party to the proceeding.
Twelve U.S. states led by Oregon filed a lawsuit April 23 against all of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The states' complaint argues that Trump exceeded his authority as established in IEEPA, since the "annual U.S. goods trade deficits" are not an "unusual and extraordinary threat." The states also argue that neither the reciprocal tariffs, nor the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico imposed to address drug trafficking, establish a sufficient nexus to the claimed emergencies (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
The Court of International Trade on April 22 denied a group of five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the companies "have not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur" before the court considers their motion for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importers van Gelder Inc. and Baker Hughes Pressure Control each dropped their customs suit at the Court of International Trade last week. Van Gelder had filed suit to challenge the classification of its vinyl tiles floor covering, seeking an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs (see 2405060033). Meanwhile, Baker Hughes had launched its case to claim that its steel parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7326.90.8588, dutiable at 2.9%, should be classified under subheadings 8481.90.9085 and 8431.43.4000, free of duty (see 2306300068). Counsel for both importers didn't respond to requests for comment (van Gelder Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00160) (Baker Hughes Pressure Control v. United States, CIT # 23-00137).
The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.
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 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 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.