Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.

Various trade-related agencies recently issued a unified report to President Donald Trump discussing a range of trade topics, including the administration of antidumping duty and countervailing duty laws, the White House announced. The administration released a summary of each section, noting that for AD/CVD laws, the report recommends adding new countries to the "list of non-market economies" and engaging in more self-initiation of new AD/CVD investigations.

The International Trade Commission filed a petition for writ of mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a recent Court of International Trade decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057) (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).

The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of paper importer Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified, on April 3 challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose 20% tariffs on all goods from China. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Simplified laid out three constitutional and statutory claims against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and one claim that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act for unlawfully modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Emily Ley Paper, doing business as Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's use of UN Comtrade data in the benchmark price for plywood and the use of adverse facts available to find that certain input suppliers are government "authorities" in both the 2019 and 2020 reviews of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Issuing a pair of decisions on the reviews on April 3, Judge Timothy Reif said that while Commerce permissibly found that the Chinese government failed to submit adequate information regarding the input suppliers, the agency ultimately didn't give the foreign government proper notice or opportunity to remedy its deficiencies.

President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his sweeping "retaliatory" tariffs (see 2504020086) has drawn serious speculation about whether the statute can serve as a proper basis for invoking the tariffs. Trade lawyers told us that potential issues arising from the use of IEEPA include the existence of tariff-making authority to address trade deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the "major questions" doctrine and the way in which the tariffs were calculated.

The Commerce Department properly found that the provision of mining rights by the Moroccan government didn't confer a benefit to countervailing duty respondent OCP and that the provision of port services was not countervailable, the Court of International Trade held on April 1.

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 Commerce Department erred in picking just one mandatory respondent in the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public on April 1. In a monster 117-page decision, Judge Timothy Reif remanded parts of the review, including the agency's decision on remand to stick with just one mandatory respondent.

To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.