The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 3-9.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking Section 301 exclusions on 31 entries for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, but he ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to include in the case's amended complaint key information about the merchandise at issue.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of March 20-26 and March 27 - April 2:

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

Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).

Electronic goods with Chinese components such as notebooks, laptops and modems reimported to the U.S after undergoing repairs in Mexico are still subject to Section 301 tariffs on the repairs, even though the repairs are duty free under USMCA, CBP said in a February ruling.

Counterweights for mini-excavators are not parts for "backhoes" and should be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, manufacturer Norca argued in a March 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. Norca accused the government of obscuring and overcomplicating the distinction between the two equipment types (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305).

A proposed formula for apportioning the value of tooling assists to imported auto parts can’t be used by an importer because it doesn’t take into consideration the country of origin of the imported parts and so fails to account for the possibility that they could be subject to additional Section 301 and Section 232 duties, CBP said in a ruling released March 27.