The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted two Alaska shipping companies' renewed bid for an injunction against CBP penalties for seafood shipments found in violation of the Jones Act, in an Oct. 10 order. After previously ruling against the companies since they hadn't fulfilled a particular part of an exception to the Jones Act, thereby failing to show a likelihood to succeed in their case, Judge Sharon Gleason ruled they now met this condition (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The U.S.'s bid for more time to respond to importer Eteros Technologies USA's motion for judgment should be denied since the Department of Justice has not shown good cause for the extension, Eteros said in an Oct. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns CBP's seizure of Eteros' motor frame assemblies -- part of a marijuana and plant harvesting unit -- under the premise that the assemblies constitute "drug paraphernalia."

An alleged transshipper in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation was allowed to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade, per an Oct. 7 order. Kingtom Aluminio was originally denied the right to intervene for failing to show a legally protectable interest in the case. Judge Richard Eaton changed his tune in the most recent order, now agreeing that the company has a protectable interest.

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), was denied a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an Oct. 6 order. Since CJE "cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief," the move for a PI was denied. CJE failed to show that Commerce acted ultra vires and in excess of its authority, Judge Reggie Walton said (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-01798).

Lawyers for LG Electronics' bid to overturn the International Trade Commission's restrictions on their participation in a solar safeguard review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the ITC argued in an Oct. 4 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Even if CIT had jurisdiction, the case is premature since there has been no "justiciable final agency action," the brief said.

Two Alaska shipping companies renewed their bid for an expedited temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments found to be in violation of the Jones Act, in an Oct. 1 motion at the Alaska U.S. District Court. The court recently denied the companies' bid for the TRO on the grounds that they had not properly satisfied all the conditions to qualify for an exception to the Jones Act, finding that if the conditions were not met, the companies were likely to fail on the merits of the case (see 2109290075).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The government stands by its arguments that the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods are “presidential actions” that are “unreviewable” by the court, the Department of Justice said in a late filing on Oct. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The Commerce Department wants a voluntary remand to reconsider a bevy of blanket Section 232 exclusion denials it issued to Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, the agency told the Court of International Trade in a Sept. 30 filing (Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00093). Judge Miller Baker then stayed the time for plaintiffs to respond to this remand motion “until further order of the court,” in an order. The judge then instructed all parties to let the court know their position on court-annexed mediation to settle the issue of remand.