The European Commission on June 17 referred Portugal to the Court of Justice for failing to "fully transpose into national law" the EU directive "laying down the general arrangements for" excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. All EU member states were required to fully transpose the EU directive regarding the excise duties, yet Portugal has yet to do so, the commission said. The regulation "sets up an EU-wide certification system for small alcohol producers to facilitate their access to lower excise duty rates across the Union" and combats fraud by "clarifying the conditions for the application of the exemptions for alcohol not intended for human consumption." The commission said this "transposition gap" affects the "cross-border trade of alcohol" made by small producers of wine to other member states and of the alcohol not meant for human consumption.
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.
The Court of International Trade on June 17 let exporter Toyo Kohan Co. amend its complaint in an antidumping duty case to add a claim against the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision rejecting Commerce's use of the test. Judge Jane Restani said the CAFC decision "fundamentally shifted the legal standard controlling" the agency's use of the test, meaning "justice requires" the exporter be allowed to raise its claim against the test.
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.