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.

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.