The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.

The U.S. on Sept. 3 asked the Supreme Court to review the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently moving the court for expedited consideration of its petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition be granted, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked that the court expedite the briefing schedule as well, which would conclude with oral argument held the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 2 heard oral argument in a case from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods, against the International Trade Commission's finding of critical circumstances for the importers' Vietnamese honey imports, which led to the retroactive imposition of antidumping duties on entries made in the 90-day window prior to the suspension of liquidation. Ron Kendler, counsel for the importers, argued that the ITC violated the logic of the critical circumstances statute, while ITC attorney Michael Haldenstein and Melissa Brower, counsel for petitioner American Honey Producers Association, said the commission's decision was entirely in bounds of the law (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).

On remand, the Commerce Department determined Aug. 29 that it wouldn’t use the Cohen’s d test in its calculation of German paper exporter Koehler Paper SE’s antidumping duty margin, instead applying its new “price difference test” (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).

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 said that the administration will petition the Supreme Court on Sept. 3 to make an "expedited ruling" on the legality of tariffs he imposed on every country through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.

The Commerce Department permissibly decided not to countervail India's Advanced Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system, in the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Aug. 29.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).

While many attorneys believe that one of the cases on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs is on a collision course with the Supreme Court, questions remain about exactly when the high court will review the case and in what form. One possibility would see the lead appeal, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which currently sits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, head to the Supreme Court's emergency, or "shadow," docket.