The Court of International Trade on June 17 denied importer Global Aluminum Distributor's motion for attorney's fees in an Enforce and Protect Act case. Judge Richard Eaton held that the government's position in the EAPA case was "substantially justified" (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).
Only the Supreme Court can provide the "finality and certainty that America's businesses need" in ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, libertarian advocacy group the Washington Legal Foundation argued in a June 18 amicus brief. Urging the high court to take up two importers' IEEPA suit prior to full review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation argued that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs and that only SCOTUS can "provide certainty and finality on that question" (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject two importers' bid to have the high court hear their case on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides for tariffs on an expedited basis. Sauer said the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, haven't justified "such a stark departure from established practice," which would see the Supreme Court take up the case prior to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit weighing in (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
A Venezuelan national and a U.S. citizen were arrested on June 13 and charged with violating U.S. sanctions on Venezuela by selling "chemical catalysts, industrial equipment, and associated services" to sanctioned Venezuelan state-owned steel mills and petrochemical companies, DOJ announced. The Venezuelan national, Juan Carlos Cairo-Padron, and the U.S. citizen, Thomas Fortinberry, both face a maximum of 20 years in prison for sanctions and money laundering counts and 10 years in prison for smuggling.
The importer seeking class certification at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act voluntarily dismissed its case June 16. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
The Commerce Department properly used partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl in an antidumping duty investigation for failing to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on June 17.
The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial held last year, Judge Stephen Vaden said, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for pullovers.
Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
Joshua Kurland, a 15-year trial attorney at DOJ, has joined Hogan Lovells as a partner in the international trade and investment practice, the firm announced. At DOJ, Kurland led the government's litigation efforts in many cases in the Commercial Litigation Branch, including over 250 international trade-related cases. From January 2024 to January 2025, he sered as a trial attorney detailed in DOJ's national security division, covering counterintelligence and export control matters.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13 issued its mandate in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its process for detecting "masked" dumping. In the decision, the appellate court said Commerce can't use the test when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous" (see 2504220030). The court said it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to data that doesn't satisfy basic statistical assumptions. As a result of the ruling, Commerce opened a public comment period to explore alternatives to using the test (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).