In light of speculation about whether President-elect Donald Trump will use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada, observers are revisiting the lone decision in the history of U.S. case law reviewing emergency trade action: U.S. v. Yoshida International.

The Commerce Department has the inherent authority to set procedural requirements in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings, making its revocation of certain AD orders lawful given that no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders, the agency said. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 11, Commerce said the Court of International Trade's rejection of its action usurped the department's clear authority to fix its own procedures (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. defended its motion to dismiss importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes, claiming that the Court of International Trade either doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Retractable's claims or that the company failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.

The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The Commerce Department issued a final rule making various changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty procedures, notably altering its nonmarket economy policy in AD cases by allowing entities in third countries "owned or controlled" by nonmarket economies to be subject to the country-wide AD rate for that nation.

The Commerce Department didn't properly explain its approach to its surrogate financial ratio calculation in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 9. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio.

Court-ordered reliquidations aren't actions taken by CBP and can't be protested, the government said in oral arguments held Dec. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Target's appeal of a liquidation ordered by CIT, the U.S. said (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).

New Zealand conservation non-profit Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2024 comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island set-net and trawl fisheries, alleging a host of analytical and legal violations committed by the agency. The group said the comparability findings fail to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, further endangering the Maui dolphin -- an endangered species of which only an estimated 43 remain (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).