The U.S. opposed the intervention of members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the Supreme Court, arguing that the members don't identify anything "rare, unusual, or extraordinary that would warrant intervention here" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, backing, among other things, the agency's decision to rely on the financial statements of Timken Romania alone as part of its surrogate value calculations and the decision to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).

Members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging the legality of tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked to intervene in the lead case on the issue a day after the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter. The Blackfeet Nation members said their claims "overlap" with the claims from the existing parties, though their case also raises questions about "fundamental constitutional principles and a unique body of federal Indian law" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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.

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).