The Court of International Trade's ruling that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption would lead to a partial repeal of the FTZ Act, importer King Maker Marketing argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. King Maker said the trade court's decision would lead to "absurd and anomalous results," since it would require finding the clock for drawback claims to start before the right to make the claim accrues (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).

Gina Justice has become the clerk of the Court of International Trade following the retirement of Mario Toscano, Justice announced on LinkedIn. For the past decade, Justice worked as the trial court administrator for Florida's 13th Judicial Circuit, which is the state court system encompassing Tampa. Prior to joining the Florida court system, Justice worked for over 30 years for courts in Hawaii and Southern California, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Importer Geotab said in a Sept. 30 complaint that its "GO Devices" -- used for “vehicle tracking and telematics” -- should've been classified as “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,” not “radio navigational aid apparatus.” As a result, they should have been liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, which provides for a 7.5% Section 301 duty on Chinese-origin products, not heading 8526, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty (Geotab Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00185).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the government's attempt to stay the case from members of Blackfeet Nation against the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act due to the federal government shutdown as "unnecessary" in light of the court's order issued in response to the shutdown (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

Court of International Trade judges Mark Barnett, Joseph Laroski, Lisa Wang, Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker, Claire Kelly, Timothy Reif and Richard Eaton stayed various cases before them after the government asked for a stay in light of the federal government shutdown.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to deny antidumping duty respondent Ditar's request for a level-of-trade analysis in the AD investigation on shopping bags from Colombia.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that antidumping duty respondent Ditar correctly reported an individual transaction, dubbed "Transaction X," as a home market sale in the AD investigation on shopping bags from Colombia. Judge M. Miller Baker said on remand the agency must address whether Ditar had "actual" knowledge of whether Transaction X was destined for export "without importing evidence relevant only to" whether Ditar had "constructive" knowledge that the sale was for export.

Domestic thermal paper producers on Sept. 29 opposed the Commerce Department’s continued inclusion, after a remand, of interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties in its calculation of German exporter Koehler Paper’s normal value for an AD investigation (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).

The Commerce Department properly found that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Oct. 1.

The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).