Plaintiffs in the case challenging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit proposed a briefing schedule that would end briefing on the same date as briefing is set to conclude in the IEEPA tariff case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. opposed the proposed schedule, urging the court to accept the schedule previously agreed to by the parties, which would end briefing on Aug. 8 (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The Court of International Trade on June 12 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to prorate the countervailing duty set for exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. in the CVD investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce's approach is supported by substantial evidence and is superior to using total adverse facts available against Ancientree due to the Chinese government's failure to supply information about the EBCP.
Panama formally accepted the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies on June 12, bringing the number of countries that have accepted the deal to 102. The WTO needs nine more countries to accept to get to two-thirds of the membership, the threshold for the agreement to take effect.
The Council of the EU on June 12 imposed tariffs on agricultural products and fertilizers from Russia and Belarus that weren't subject to the additional customs duties thus far imposed on related products. The council said the goal is to "reduce EU dependence on those imports" and "reduce Russian export revenues" in a bid to limit Russia's ability to fund its war against Ukraine.
Stephen Vaden, current judge on the Court of International Trade, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as deputy secretary of agriculture. The Senate confirmed Vaden with a 51-44 vote split exactly down party lines. Five senators -- Ted Budd, R-N.C., Jon Ossoff, R-Ga., Thom Tillis R-N.C., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., -- didn't take part in the vote.
Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).
Importer Meyer Corporation U.S. and the U.S. traded supplemental briefs last week following a bench trial at the Court of International Trade on whether Meyer's cookware imports are entitled to first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation U.S. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).
Eteros Says Declaratory Relief Needed to Thwart 'Retaliatory' Action Against Successful CIT Litigant
Importer Eteros Technologies USA last week defended the notion that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear the company's case alleging that CBP illegally retaliated against the company for its success before the trade court. Eteros said CBP's claimed basis for taking the allegedly retaliatory action against Eteros and its executives, that the company is "aiding and abetting narcotics trafficking," is "factually baseless" and "legally impermissible" in light of the trade court's ruling in Eteros' past case before CIT (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Litigants in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed a proposed briefing schedule before the appellate court that would conclude briefing by July 18 (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).