The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.
The case against the lists 3 and 4A tariffs is unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court or the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recent decision from the Federal Circuit upholding the tariffs likely gives the Trump administration greater confidence in using tariff authorities other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case regarding the propriety of the Commerce Department's approach to rejecting untimely submissions. In August, the appellate court said Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan that was filed one hour and 41 minutes late (see 2508040031). The court said that, going forward, courts considering the agency's rejection of untimely documents shall consider the "remedial-not-punitive purpose" of AD/CVD laws, the burden imposed on Commerce that would result from accepting the submission, whether "any finality concerns would be implicated" and the "late-filing party's efforts" and its "reasons for the submission's untimeliness" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 signed off on the settlement of a customs penalty suit the U.S. brought against importer Katana Racing. Under the settlement, Katana agreed to pay $2.35 million to resolve the case, which involved $5.8 million in unpaid duties and penalties related to the company's tire imports (see 2509050067) (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 23 directed the Court of International Trade to transfer a certain physical exhibit to the appeals court in importer Cozy Comfort's customs case on the classification of its oversized pullover, The Comfy. Cozy moved the Federal Circuit without opposition to transfer a physical sample of The Comfy and its retail packaging to the court so the sample is "available for inspection by this Court and the parties at oral argument" (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
CBP told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 22 that communications between it and Apple didn't show that the agency coordinated with Apple to skirt a limited exclusion order (LEO) from the International Trade Commission that bars the importation of Apple Watch products that infringe Masimo's patents (Masimo v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, D.D.C. # 25-02749).
The International Trade Commission "dodges" the substantive arguments made against its affirmative injury finding on Israeli brass rod and, instead, repeatedly asks the Court of International Trade to defer to its "flawed methodologies," the Israeli government's Ministry of Economy and Industry argued in a reply brief filed last week at the trade court (Government of Israel v. United States, CIT # 24-00197).
A total of seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the briefs, filed by the America First Policy Institute, urged the Supreme Court to sustain Trump's IEEPA tariff action under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, while another, penned by University of Virginia law professor Aditya Bamzai, detailed how wartime powers have historically included the power to tax and argued that IEEPA should be read to include these powers (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).