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

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative heard from business groups, businesses that offer traceability solutions and civil society groups, 45 in all, on how to shape a forced labor strategy -- but their views diverged strongly on what the approach should be.

Following the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand results at the Court of International Trade further justifying its lists 3 and 4A tariff action, it can be expected for the thousands of plaintiffs to argue that the explanation falls short in addressing the trade court's concerns, three Wiley Rein attorneys said in an Aug. 2 alert on the remand results. The plaintiffs will further argue that "the court should order the tariffs to be lifted," the law firm said.

Correction: Richard Harper, director of government affairs at the Outdoor Industry Association, noted, during an International Trade Commission hearing, that supply chains moved out of China for outdoor goods and other types of goods (see 2207210015).

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The Court of International Trade should overturn a decision by CBP to classify imported desk pad and planning calendars, importer Blue Sky said in a complaint filed Aug. 4 at the Court of International Trade (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00624).

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, said the agency in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.