Steel importer Seneca Foods Corp. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 to overturn the Commerce Department's rejection of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, claiming its approach to exclusion requests "sought to ensure that the President's aims" in imposing the tariffs "would be fully realized." Seneca said the fact that U.S. Steel Corp., which objected to Seneca's requests, "declined to supply the very same volumes for which Seneca sought exclusions should be dispositive" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).
The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 25 the Commerce Department's inclusion of Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce was entirely in line when it considered a prior scope ruling asked for by Precision and concluded that the products at issue in the prior scope ruling were identical to the products considered in the subsequent scope case.
The Commerce Department failed to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty review respondent PT Bahari Makmur Sejati in the AD investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner also challenged the agency's surrogate company pick for valuing home market profit and expense ratios and "allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone" (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00027).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
A Vietnamese shrimp exporter trade group challenged the International Trade Commission's finding that frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia and Vietnam injured the U.S. industry. Filing a complaint on Feb. 21, the group challenged the ITC's finding of significant price underselling and on the "interchangeability between" farm-raised and wild-caught shrimp as evidence of the "degree of competition between" imports and domestic production and the "consequent effect on prices" (Shrimp Committee of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers v. United States, CIT # 25-00032).
The Commerce Department failed to investigate subsidies received by cross-owned suppliers of fresh shrimp in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The association also contested Commerce's findings that the provision of fuel and brackish water for less than adequate remuneration were not countervailable (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00026).
Two Commerce Department attorneys, Chris Kimura and Hendricks Valenzuela, have left Commerce in recent days, they both confirmed to Trade Law Daily. Kimura left to join Blank Rome as an associate, according to his LinkedIn page. The pair join former Commerce attorney Savannah Maxwell, who also is leaving the agency to join the private sector (see 2502100007).
The World Trade Organization's published agenda for the Dispute Settlement Body's Feb. 24 meeting includes a request from China to establish a panel in its dispute against Turkey's measures on electric vehicles and other types of vehicles from China.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A federal court in Kentucky found that Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations licensing requirements for technical data don't violate the First Amendment as a restriction on free speech. Judge David Hale of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky said the licensing requirements "advance important government interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech" and don't burden "substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests" (United States v. Pascoe, W.D. Ky. # 3:22-88).