Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week appeared skeptical of arguments made by counsel for Midwest-CBK that its goods sent to U.S. customers from Canadian warehouses weren't sold "for exportation into the United States" and thus were properly liquidated using deductive value (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).

The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and to do so on an expedited basis. The court set a briefing schedule that would conclude by Oct. 30 and set argument for the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

In oral arguments Sept. 5, steel rebar petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition and Turkish exporter Kaptan Demir attempted to define whether a Turkish shipbuilding company, which sold scrap to Kaptan during the review period, was the exporter’s cross-owned input supplier (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies' case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani said the company failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one.

The Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against antidumping duty respondent Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry for failing to remedy deficiencies in its cost reconciliation submission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Sept. 8. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark also said Commerce wasn't required to provide Corinth with an opportunity to comment on the agency's analysis that led to the conclusion that the company's reported costs didn't reconcile with its financial accounting system.

Plaintiffs in the primary case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the Supreme Court on Sept. 5 that they consent to the high court's review of the case. Responding to the government's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against many of the tariffs, the plaintiffs, consisting of five importers, said Supreme Court review is "essential," and the court's "final word is needed urgently" in light of the harm wrought by the tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).

The Commerce Department lacked authority under its regulations to rescind the administrative reviews of two Chinese wood moulding exporters "solely due to a lack of suspended entries," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 5. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's regulation, 19 C.F.R. Section 351.213(d)(3), only allows for rescission if there were no entries of the subject merchandise, adding that the regulation doesn't "include or imply a requirement that these entries be suspended."

The Supreme Court may be willing to adopt certain arguments made by the dissenting judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us. Specifically, certain justices may be willing to adopt Judge Richard Taranto's discussion of the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine, though others were more skeptical about how much tariff authority the court is willing to cede to the president under IEEPA and these two doctrines.

The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.

The U.S. on Sept. 3 asked the Supreme Court to review the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently moving the court for expedited consideration of its petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition be granted, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked that the court expedite the briefing schedule as well, which would conclude with oral argument held the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).