The Commerce Department properly decided not to collapse an Italian antidumping duty respondent with its Romanian input supplier on the grounds that the input supplier isn't a "producer" of subject merchandise as defined by the AD statute, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 15. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's justification isn't impermissibly post hoc, despite the fact that it wasn't established during the challenged AD review, since the issue is "one of statutory construction."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided Sept. 12 to stay proceedings in California's case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it denied the government's stay request in a similar case brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. Oral argument in the tribal members' lawsuit remains scheduled for Sept. 17 before Judges William Fletcher, Ronald Gould and Ana de Alba (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations. Judge Timothy Reif said that no party objected to Commerce's remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

The Court of International Trade properly found that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 11 reply brief. The government said CIT properly defined the term "importations" according to both common meaning and judicial precedent as "foreign merchandise coming into the United States" (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use (T-type) tires fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The position represents a reversal of the agency's previous decision to exclude the tires from the scope of the order (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The U.S. renewed its motions to pause proceedings in two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a pair of cases on the same issue. Plaintiffs in both appeals, the State of California and members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, opposed the renewed motions (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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.