Importer Trijicon's tritium lamps are "lamps" of Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 regardless of the "material" of which they are made and the light source they use, the U.S. said in a Dec. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Trijicon v. U.S., CIT # 22-00040).

Action camera maker GoPro Inc.'s camera housings are camera parts and not cases, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 28, allowing them to enter the U.S. duty-free.

A ban on imports of Apple watches is on hold, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 27 granted Apple's bid for an interim stay of the International Trade Commission's import ban in a patent dispute concerning the watches' medical monitoring technology (Apple Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).

The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).

The U.S. misread the statute governing deemed liquidation for drawback claims to create exception to the rule where none exists, importer Performance Additives argued Dec. 26 (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).

Antidumping duty petitioner the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group argued in a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department "improperly calculated" exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's duty drawback adjustment (The Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00251).

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.

Exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. failed to raise arguments on the surrogate value of bituminous coal in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 21. Judge Mark Barnett said that despite Jilin Bright's argument, "this case fits squarely into the classic administrative exhaustion paradigm."

Plaintiffs in the massive ongoing Section 301 litigation "ignore" the president's role in imposing the China tariffs, the U.S. said last week, arguing that the thousands of companies leading the case would have the court impose an improper standard of review (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The government's claim that a group of Canadian softwood lumber exporters shouldn't be able to intervene in an antidumping duty case is based on "an unreasonably narrow, absurd, and constitutionally problematic reading of" the statute on parties entitled to participate in civil actions, the exporters argued (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).