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).
The U.S. is trying to rehash settled issues in a customs suit on the classification of Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft, Honeywell argued in a July 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While the government argued that the court should have performed a GRI 2(a) analysis, Honeywell argued that no such analysis was needed and that, even assuming GRI 2 is applicable, "the result is the same" that the parts are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
Importer Gum Products International filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on July 17 to contest the Commerce Department's scope rulings concerning the company's oilfield equipment lubricant and food ingredient products. In both scope determinations, Commerce said the importer's products fall under the scope of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China (Gum Products International v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00108, -00109).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against surety company XL Specialty Insurance on July 17, seeking over $3.6 million in unpaid duties and interested owed on customs bonds. The government said XL "materially breached the terms of the subject bonds" by refusing to pay following CBP's demand for payment (United States v. XL Specialty Insurance, CIT # 25-00154).
The U.S. opposed two importers' bid to have the Supreme Court hear their challenge to the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a chance to hear the case. The government argued that the high court shouldn't step in before either the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had a chance to address the claims against the IEEPA tariffs, particularly since both courts are hearing the appeals on very expedited timelines (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade's decision to vacate the executive orders imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't "withstand close scrutiny," NYU Law School professor Samuel Estreicher and recent law school grad Andrew Babbit said in a blog post.
The U.S. on July 15 opposed importer Simplified's bid to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its stay of proceedings in its case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that Simplified's case will be resolved by the current appeal on the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).