The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 18 stayed two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the appeal (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
Section 338 hasn't been implicitly repealed, and President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can also be upheld under Section 338, the Trump-aligned legal advocacy group America First Policy Institute argued in a proposed amicus reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments against its position from the 12 U.S. states and five importers challenging the IEEPA tariffs and another amicus brief filed by various legal scholars and former government officials, the institute argued that the states and amicus didn't offer any support for many of their claims (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. filed its reply brief in the lead case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing, among other things, that the Court of International Trade doesn't have the power to issue a nationwide injunction vacating the tariffs and that IEEPA plainly allows the president to impose tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 denied importer Simplified's motion to reconsider the court's decision to stay the company's case against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the lead IEEPA tariff case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
A group of constitutional scholars, legal historians, a former appellate judge, a former attorney general and three former U.S. senators urged the Supreme Court on July 17 to take up two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The amici argued that President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs clearly violate the constitutional order and, if upheld, would let the president use IEEPA " to reshape U.S. economic policy, and indeed the global economy more generally, without involving Congress" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng for negligently failing to pay ordinary, Section 301 and antidumping duties on its innerspring entries. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion, after previously rejecting it for insufficiently pleaded facts, ordering Rayson and Cheng to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty and all unpaid duties, taxes and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in the case (U.S. v. Rayson Global, Inc. and Doris Cheng, CIT # 23-00201).
The Commerce Department properly calculated the antidumping duty rate for the non-individually investigated respondents in an AD review by averaging the identical adverse facts available rates of the two mandatory respondents, the Court of International Trade held on July 18. Judge Gary Katzmann held that while Commerce said it took a simple average of the AFA rates and not a weighted average of the rates, which is the "expected method" for determining the all-others rate, the resulting 21.1% rate isn't a deviation from the expected method and is thus "presumptively reasonable."
Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company took to the Court of International Trade on July 18 to get declaratory and injunctive relief from President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods. The importers argued that the tariffs, which are set to come into effect on Aug. 1, exceed Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and represent an unconstitutional delegation of power (Johanna Foods v. United States, CIT # 25-00155).
The U.S. filed a complaint on July 15 in a case against importer Global Office Furniture and its owner Malcom Smith for allegedly violating the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying duties on imported office chairs, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina announced. The case was originally filed in March 2020 by Sharon Joyce, former office manager for Global Office Furniture (United States v. Global Office Furniture, D.S.C. # 2:20-01223).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 17 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case following its decision to deny exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of the court's decision. In its decision, CAFC Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).