The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 denied the government's motion for reconsideration in importer BASF's customs case on the classification of its fish oil ethyl ester concentrates. Judge Joseph Laroski rejected the government's claims that the court, in finding that the concentrates are "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 (see 2506040076), overlooked that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and ignored BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids. Laroski said the court explicitly addressed the claim regarding meat extracts and considered BASF's stipulation.

The U.S. and domestic producer Deer Park Glycine jointly agreed Sept. 17 to dismiss the producer’s 2024 case against a scope ruling request denial (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. said on Sept. 17 it doesn't oppose Chinese exporter Ninestar's motion to amend its complaint in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, though the government said it "reserves its right to move to dismiss one or both additional counts" in the amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Chlorinated isocyanurates (isos) isn’t an “unusual or unique” product that would require a change to the Commerce Department’s surrogate selection procedure, the government said in its Sept. 15 response to domestic producer Bio-Lab’s motion for judgment (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).

No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Respondents, led by the Coalition for Fair Mexican Exports of Aluminum Extrusions, defended the International Trade Commission's negative injury finding regarding aluminum extrusions from 14 countries, in a Sept. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The coalition argued that the ITC properly supported its findings that the subject imports didn't have "significant price effects" nor did they have a "significant adverse impact on the domestic industry" (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00209).

Various solar cell importers and exporters, led by the American Clean Power Association, will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision invalidating President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries. The importers and exporters will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Adverse facts available were warranted for a Vietnamese electric wire exporter’s reporting of its inputs’ countries of origin, the U.S. said Sept. 8 in response to an exporter’s motion for judgment opposing a circumvention ruling (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held argument on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's decision to transfer a case against the legality of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs and Section 232 tariffs as applied to tribal members to the Court of International Trade. One of the judges, Judge William Fletcher, appeared skeptical of the government's claim that the court can't review the district court's transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

Importers who have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should look to affirmatively safeguard their right to receive refunds should the Supreme Court vacate in some form President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the statute, various law firms said. The attorneys issued the alerts in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to hear two cases on the legality of IEEPA tariffs on an expedited basis (see 2509090058).