The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief last week in support of its motion to dismiss the case, the government argued that Eteros' case doesn't challenge the "administration and enforcement" of an import transaction" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
The Court of International Trade on July 8 dismissed importer PPG Industries' case against the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on epoxy resins from China, India, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, for lack of prosecution. No complaint was filed within the statutorily prescribed period. Counsel for PPG didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (PPG Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00101).
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the ability for lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions doesn't affect the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 12 U.S. states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8. The states, led by Oregon, argued in a reply brief that the trade court's injunction, which applied to parties not part of the lawsuit against the tariffs, is necessary to afford the states complete relief (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
In July 2 oral argument for a case on antidumping duty and countervailing duty injury investigations on freight rail couplers, parties before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann wrestled with what one attorney described as a truly novel issue: whether it was lawful of the International Trade Commission to initiate an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
The FCC should expand the payor base of regulatory fees, said NAB and Telesat in comments filed in docket 25-190 by Monday’s comment deadline. NAB and satellite industry commenters were broadly supportive of the agency’s proposal to reclassify 61 indirect full-time equivalents (FTEs) as direct FTEs and collect $390,192,000 in fees, but some said industries that benefit from FCC processes should bear part of the fee burden.
Five different groups of amici on July 8 filed briefs in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All five briefs argued against the tariffs, though they differed in their specific approach or legal arguments (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Office of Foreign Assets Control fined a global audio electronics company $1,454,145 for allegedly violating U.S. sanctions, accusing its employees of shipping goods to a United Arab Emirates distributor that they knew would then sell the items in Iran.
Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 30 - July 6: