Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden resigned from the court on July 4 and was sworn in as deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on July 7. Vaden was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last month to serve in the number two role at USDA (see 2506120064).

Five importers challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government's defense of the tariffs' legality falls short. The importers, represented by the conservative advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, argued that IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs, IEEPA is precluded from being used to address trade deficits due to the existence of Section 122, and the Court of International Trade was right to issue an injunction against the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Commerce Department improperly found that U.S. company Aloha Pencil didn't qualify as a domestic manufacturer, producer or wholesaler, which led to the recission of the 2023-24 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, Aloha argued in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).

Animal feed additive importer Zoetis’ products were properly classified by CBP as feed additives, not antibiotics, the U.S. said in a June 30 brief (Zoetis Services, v. United States, CIT # 22-00056).

Importer Ansell Healthcare Products brought a July 3 complaint against the United States saying that, after a “series of clerical errors,” it paid almost $2.4 million in duties and fees on three reconciliation entries when it should have only paid $461.01 (Ansell Healthcare Products v. United States, CIT # 20-003922).

The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China via Indonesia-based exporter PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient. Judge Stephen Vaden said CBP adequately supported its finding that PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory couldn't produce all the glycine it shipped to the U.S. and that at least some of the exported glycine was sourced in China.

The Court of International Trade on July 3 denied the International Trade Commission's request to redact five pieces of information from the court's public version of its decision remanding the commission's affirmative injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. Concurrently, Judge Stephen Vaden released the public decision, which said the record "raises serious questions about whether domestic producers were able and willing to supply consumers during the period of review."

The Court of International Trade on July 2 said in a text-only order it will hold oral argument on importer Detroit Axle's challenge of President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese products via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While CIT Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani stayed consideration of the importer's claims against the tariffs on China issued under IEEPA, the judges set a July 10 oral argument date for consideration of the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against the end of the de minimis threshold (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The Court of International Trade on July 3 let importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations add three documents to the record in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said the documents are needed to review whether Commerce improperly declined to add the documents to the record in the AD investigation.

The U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.’s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106. It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318) (see 2506040076).