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.

President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).

Counsel for the importer plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has no plans to preemptively petition the Supreme Court to review the case in light of plaintiffs in a separate IEEPA tariffs suit doing so. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center and counsel for the CAFC IEEPA plaintiffs, told us that he has "no plans to file a petition with the Supreme Court prior to a decision by the Federal Circuit," though he said "circumstances could change that."

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president suspend the de minimis threshold to respond to a national emergency notwithstanding Section 321's limits on eliminating or modifying the threshold, the U.S. argued. Urging the Court of International Trade to side with the government in importer Detroit Axle's suit against the elimination of the de minimis threshold on Chinese goods, the U.S. said the IEEPA's language lets the president void pre-existing privileges granted by other authorities, such as Section 321 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).