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 Commerce Department appropriately stuck with its decision on remand to select Germany as the third country for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on Dutch mushrooms, the Court of International Trade held on July 16. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce fully supported its efforts to account for the percent of Prochamp's product sold to Germany that is actually resold in another country and, thus, its finding that Germany remained the best comparison market.

The Court of International Trade on July upheld the Commerce Department's finding on remand that antidumping duty respondent Megaa Moda didn't have either actual or constructive knowledge that its sales to an unnamed company were destined for export to the U.S. Judge Thomas Aquilino said that while he may have come to a different conclusion upon reviewing the evidence de novo, it's not the court's role to substitute its judgment for Commerce's when the choice is "between two conflicting views."

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.

Importer Norca Industrial Company and exporter Vinlong Stainless Steel said the Commerce Department overstated Vinlong’s antidumping duty rate in a 2022-2023 review on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Vietnam by relying on total adverse facts available and selecting Morocco as a surrogate country instead of Indonesia (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00132).

CBP unlawfully excluded importer Maxeon Americas' solar module entries on the basis that the goods were made, in whole or in part, in Xinjiang or by a company on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Maxeon argued in a July 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said the agency ignored "substantial and persuasive" evidence showing the company's Max6 model solar modules weren't made in Xinjiang or by a listed company, adding that the agency appears to be using an "unreasonably difficult standard" in reviewing whether goods are made in Xinjiang (Maxeon Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00074).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 11 upheld Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology's designation as a "Chinese military company." Judge Paul Friedman waded through issues of statutory interpretation regarding the Pentagon's definition of the phrase "military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base" and DOD's evidentiary basis for finding that this phrase describes Hesai (Hesai Technology v. U.S. Dep't of Def., D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The Court of International Trade on July 10 heard oral argument in importer Detroit Axle's case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani pressed counsel for both the U.S. and the importer on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to take such action, given the specific language at play in both IEEPA and 19 U.S.C. 1321, the de minimis statute (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. opposed exporter Camel Group's motion to unredact part of the record in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 10 that disclosure of information deemed confidential "would substantially harm the Government's" law enforcement efforts in applying the UFLPA. The government told the Court of International Trade it has a "strong interest in protecting the law enforcement sensitive information," while Camel has "no compelling argument as to why disclosure to the public, or to Camel, as opposed to confidential disclosure, is necessary" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).