Importers Wego and Galleher either waived or forfeited any arguments they may have against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this month, the government said the importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain Commerce's remand results in which it calculated the separate rate, waiving any claims against the remand results (Galleher Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, filed their opening brief on June 23 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest the Commerce Department's decision to exclude in-transit mattresses from the input data used to calculate quarterly ratios in an AD investigation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
Respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 23 to rehear its antidumping duty case, arguing that a three-judge panel committed "legal error" by affirming the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material. Carbon Activated said the panel also erred in "misapprehending key distinctions between the administrative record" of the 2018-19 AD review on Chinese activated carbon and the records of prior reviews (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Exporters led by Bioparques de Occidente agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico originally opened in 1996 but subject to a series of suspension agreements negotiated between the Commerce Department and the Mexican government. The case was previously stayed after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
The Court of International Trade on June 24 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 2. Kelly previously remanded the investigation so the agency could redo its analysis of whether respondent Louis Dreyfus and its unnamed supplier, Supplier A, are affiliated or are partners (see 2411180024). Kelly said Commerce failed to consider whether Louis Drefyfus has the "ability to control Supplier A," and whether the supplier is "reliant" on the respondent. On remand, Commerce continued to find that Louis Dreyfus and Supplier A aren't affiliated, nor are they partners (see 2502180037). The agency said it's important to distinguish "exclusivity" from "reliance" in affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body on June 23 agreed to establish dispute panels in China's case against Canada's tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and steel and aluminum products and Canada's dispute against Chinese import duties on Canadian agricultural and fisheries products, the WTO announced.