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 properly used partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl in an antidumping duty investigation for failing to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on June 17.

The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial held last year, Judge Stephen Vaden said, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for pullovers.

Two importers challenging tariffs imposed under the international Emergency Economic Powers Act, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, petitioned the Supreme Court June 17 to hear their case in a bid to accelerate the resolution of the challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The companies, represented by Akin Gump, said the high court should hear the case now in "light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The Court of International Trade correctly found that importer Ildico’s watches didn't have cases made “wholly” of precious metals and that the importer was relying on too narrow a definition of "watch cases," the U.S. argued June 13 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Ildico Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1337).

The Commerce Department's regulations allowing it to set deadlines to file separate rate applications or certifications can't trump its statutory duty to examine the largest exporters by volume in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that under the facts of the review, the agency improperly declined to consider exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent despite it being the largest exporter of subject goods to the U.S. due to its untimely separate rate application.

Plaintiffs in the case challenging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit proposed a briefing schedule that would end briefing on the same date as briefing is set to conclude in the IEEPA tariff case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. opposed the proposed schedule, urging the court to accept the schedule previously agreed to by the parties, which would end briefing on Aug. 8 (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Court of International Trade on June 12 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to prorate the countervailing duty set for exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. in the CVD investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce's approach is supported by substantial evidence and is superior to using total adverse facts available against Ancientree due to the Chinese government's failure to supply information about the EBCP.

Importer Eteros Technologies USA last week defended the notion that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear the company's case alleging that CBP illegally retaliated against the company for its success before the trade court. Eteros said CBP's claimed basis for taking the allegedly retaliatory action against Eteros and its executives, that the company is "aiding and abetting narcotics trafficking," is "factually baseless" and "legally impermissible" in light of the trade court's ruling in Eteros' past case before CIT (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

Litigants in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed a proposed briefing schedule before the appellate court that would conclude briefing by July 18 (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).