The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation for the importer's success in a previous CIT case concerning the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, since it doesn't arise out of a "law of the United States providing for" trade-related action.

Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker is requiring that any filings before him after Aug. 4 that use generative AI must include a "certification" disclosing that AI was used. Any submission in a case before Baker prepared with the assistance of an AI program "based on natural language prompts -- such as, but not limited to, ChatGPT or Google Bard -- must include a statement" that identifies the program used and the specific part of the text prepared with AI. Counsel also must submit a certification that no confidential information has been disclosed to the AI program. Baker is the second CIT judge to require such disclosure after former Judge Stephen Vaden implemented a similar disclosure requirement when he was on the bench.

The Commerce Department on Aug. 4 switched from a "tier two" to a "tier three" benchmark in calculating the benefit received by countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit for the provision of natural gas for less than adequate remuneration. Responding to the Court of International Trade's remand order in a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizer from Russia, Commerce adjusted Apatit's CVD rate from 28.50% to 49.64% (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

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.

Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), which says CIT will hear cases arising out of a "law of the United States providing for" various trade-related actions. The judge held that Eteros' allegations don't arise out of any trade-related U.S. laws. Katzmann also held that no relief is needed to effectuate the trade court's prior ruling in favor of Eteros, since no party disputes that CBP complied with CIT's "specific directive" to release Eteros' marijuana trimmers.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 dismissed two cases from importer ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada for lack of prosecution. The cases were placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." The lawsuits concerned CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel products should be excluded from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, #s 21-00342, -00343).

A total of 12 amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in conjunction with arguments from two importers challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Commerce Department was wrong to hit importer AM Stone with adverse facts available during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on Chinese-origin quartz surface products for its exporter’s failure to provide information, AM Stone said in a July 27 brief. Despite Commerce's claim otherwise, substantial evidence shows the quartz countertops were manufactured in Malaysia, not China, AM Stone said, arguing that it shouldn’t have been assigned the China-wide 326.15% AD rate and 45.32% CVD rate (AM Stone & Cabinets v. U.S., CIT # 24-00241).

The Commerce Department slashed antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe's antidumping duty rate to zero percent on remand in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the 2018-19 review period. The case was remanded after the Court of International Trade said Commerce failed to notify Saha Thai of supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (PT. Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).