Mirror finish importer Mirror Metals requested dismissal May 30 of its 2021 suit against the U.S. The case never saw the filing of a complaint (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00213).

The U.S. and Fortune Energy agreed June 4 to settle a customs penalty case alleging that the importer lied about the composition of its aluminum extrusions in entry paperwork to avoid paying antidumping duties (United States v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).

The State of California appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's decision to dismiss its case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, filing on June 4 a motion to expedite the appeal. California's proposed schedule would see briefing conclude on Aug. 18, with California's opening brief due on June 30 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).

The 12 states challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the Trump administration's claim that it will be irreparably harmed without a stay are undermined by administration officials' own statements (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

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

The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).

Responding to the environmental group Maui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ (see 2504280061, the New Zealand government and the United States each said that the environmental group was “fundamentally misunderstand[ing]” how the National Marine Fisheries Service conducts comparability analyses and was wrongly pointing to a typographical error to support its conclusion as to the remaining population of endangered Maui dolphins (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).

The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of the financial statement of TMTE Metal Tech to calculate respondent Triune Technofab's constructed value in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. The result is a negative determination in the AD investigation.

The U.S. has asked the Court of International Trade to stay the remaining cases on its docket challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending its appeal of the trade court's recent decision vacating all tariffs thus far imposed under IEEPA. The government argued that a stay is "warranted," since "an appellate ruling would be binding on plaintiffs’ claims" at CIT and resources will be spared in not having to litigate the same issues (Princess Awesome v. United States, CIT # 25-00078) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. United States, CIT # 25-00096).

The U.S. sought partial dismissal May 27 of power cables importer PowerTec Solutions’ 2022 case seeking Section 301 duty refunds. Specifically, it said that one of the importer’s administrative protests was insufficient to support a subsequent legal challenge (PowerTec Solutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).