Rail coupler importer Strato Feb. 1 filed a motion for remand for reconsideration of an injury investigation, alleging “newly emerged evidence of fraud perpetuated by the domestic industry” (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).

A Wisconsin man filed a pro se lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties represents an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution. The individual, Gary Barnes, said imposing tariffs "is not within the jurisdiction of the President's duties," noting that the power to levy tariffs rests solely with Congress (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).

The U.S. on Feb. 3 brought a complaint against importer Shunny Corp., doing business as Sampac Enterprises, alleging that the company negligently misreported the country of origin of its health products to avoid import duties. The government is seeking nearly $200,000 in unpaid duties, along with a nearly $1.4 million penalty (United States v. Shunny Corp., CIT # 25-00039).

The U.S. moved to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' case at the Court of International Trade filed under Section 1581(c) against the Commerce Department's "unpublished determination not to initiate a changed circumstances review." The government said the decision not to start the CCR isn't a decision listed under either 19 U.S.C. § 1516a or 1517, either of which would give the trade court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).

The U.S. opposed a motion from importer Quantified Operations seeking to compel the government to produce unredacted internal CBP communications on the classification of the company's 3D printing pens, arguing at the Court of International Trade that the communications are irrelevant and otherwise protected by the "deliberative-process privilege" (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).

The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

The U.S. and importer Mirror Metals filed a stipulated judgment on agreed facts in which the government agreed not to apply 25% Section 232 tariffs to the importer’s steel articles (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

The following lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).