The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.

Georgetown Law School Professor Jennifer Hillman, a former International Trade Commissioner and member of the World Trade Organization's appellate body, said she thinks there are grounds for a challenge to 25% tariffs on autos and auto parts, imposed on national security grounds under Section 232.

The Court of International Trade called on future litigants to address the "various problems of interpretation" posed by the Commerce Department's subassemblies provision in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders. In a pair of decisions issued June 25, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the current construction of the provision can lead to "unreasonable, and even absurd, results."

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 16-22:

The Supreme Court on June 20 denied a motion from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind to expedite consideration of their petition to have the high court take up their lawsuit against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 9-15:

An individual importer, Ricardo Vega, will receive refunds for a Porsche imported in 2023, according to a stipulated judgment filed at the Court of International Trade on June 17. Similarly, importers Yellowbird Enterprises and Vantage Point Services will receive refunds for duties paid on a Jaguar also entered in 2023.

Texas-based industrial equipment supplier Unicat was ordered to pay $1,655,189.57 in unpaid duties to CBP after it illegally evaded tariffs on imported chemical catalysts. The company’s former CEO, Mani Erfan, “devised and implemented a tariff avoidance scheme” in which the company falsely understated the value of its imported catalysts and the duties owed to CBP, DOJ said. The company sourced most of its catalysts from China, the agency said.