CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).

The Court of International Trade dismissed exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s challenge to CBP's issuance of a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries. However, in a confidential decision issued on April 16, Judge Claire Kelly denied the government's motion to dismiss Hoshine's second claim, which contested CBP's refusal to modify the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

After a remand by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2412170041), the Commerce Department again found in a countervailing duty administrative review’s final results that South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration was specific to the country’s steel industry (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

The lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs has been assigned to a three-judge panel. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani will hear the case, according to an order from CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

The Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in importer Simplified's lawsuit against the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China to support the government's motion to transfer the matter, currently before a Florida federal district court, to the Court of International Trade. The brief said the trade court's work is "important" but "hardly well known," making it unsurprising that some parties in IEEPA cases "have either not recognized how § 1581(i) applies to IEEPA, or have chosen not to press the matter" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, which was initially opened in 1996. After the agency calculated AD margins for the seven respondents from the original 1995-96 investigation period on remand, a group of intervenors, led by NS Brands, challenged Commerce's decision not to find a changed circumstance or initiate new shipper reviews for the intervenors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that they could have been brought under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, instead of under the plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim under Section 1581(c). The judge also found that the intervenors lacked standing to sue.

The Court of International Trade on April 15 denied importer Under the Weather's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods." Judge Timothy Reif said the proposed amended complaint "was filed after undue delay and is futile."

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.

In an April 14 opinion, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department’s final determination in its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. He upheld the department’s usual two-step surrogate selection process under Loper Bright, but he found that Commerce erred in its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isos.

The U.S. filed motions to transfer the two cases challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed in federal district courts to the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the government said the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claims raised by both lawsuits, since they "arise out of laws providing for tariffs or the administration or enforcement of those laws" (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).