The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 27 in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court got the jurisdiction and merits questions wrong. The government said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a "nonsensical" view of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction and that, contrary to the court's ruling, IEEPA does confer tariff-setting authority (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.

The Court of International Trade on June 26 heard oral argument in a suit from U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy against the Biden administration's decision to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Judge Timothy Reif heard from DOJ, the plaintiffs and counsel for various solar cell importers and exporters on whether Auxin waited too long to file suit and the propriety of applying retroactive relief, given that the affected importers would be subject to massive antidumping and countervailing duties without a chance for review (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

A Thai wheel exporter and three importers filed their opening bid at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenge a trade court ruling that their products, wheels made with some Chinese-origin components, originated from China rather than Thailand (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1689).

The Court of International Trade called on future litigants to address the "various problems of interpretation" posed by the Commerce Department's subassemblies provision in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders. In a pair of decisions issued June 25, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the current construction of the provision can lead to "unreasonable, and even absurd, results."

Respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 23 to rehear its antidumping duty case, arguing that a three-judge panel committed "legal error" by affirming the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material. Carbon Activated said the panel also erred in "misapprehending key distinctions between the administrative record" of the 2018-19 AD review on Chinese activated carbon and the records of prior reviews (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

​​​​​​Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).

The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

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.