The U.S. government's "newfound" theory of jurisdiction in two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is "both convoluted and wrong," the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The International Trade Commission failed to include processors of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in the U.S. industry in an injury proceeding on imports of the product from China and India, importer Nufarm Americas argued in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nufarm added that the ITC largely ignored the fact that petitioner Corteva Agriscience "withdrew from the U.S. merchant market for 2,4-D acid and esters" to focus on making its patented downstream non-subject 2,4-D end use products" (Nufarm Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00133).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 22 dismissed a lawsuit from eight Malian citizens against seven U.S. cocoa importers, which was filed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), for lack of standing. Judges Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett and Justin Walker held that the Malian citizens, who attempted to certify a class, failed to clearly allege facts showing the "causal connection between" the importers' "alleged supply chain venture" and the laborers' forced child labor (Issouf Coubaly v. Cargill, D.C. Cir. # 22-7104).

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 adequately supported its de facto specificity finding regarding Indian state-run coal supplier Coal India's provision of coal to respondent Hindalco Inndustries for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a July 22 decision. In the ruling, Judge Joseph Laroski also upheld Commerce's decision to use U.N. Comtrade data as a benchmark for calculating the size of the coal subsidy in the 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India.

Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company on July 22 asked the Court of International Trade to either temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoin the federal government from "imposing and enforcing" President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Filing a combined application for a temporary restraining order and motions for a preliminary or permanent injunction, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage said the tariff isn't a proper exercise of either Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, CIT # 25-00155).

Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski held July 21 that importer Hanon Systems’ aluminum foil originated from China, not South Korea, sustaining a Commerce Department decision that analyzed the five mandatory factors in a country-of-origin analysis and found only two weighed in favor of China.

The U.S. filed its reply brief in the lead case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing, among other things, that the Court of International Trade doesn't have the power to issue a nationwide injunction vacating the tariffs and that IEEPA plainly allows the president to impose tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng for negligently failing to pay ordinary, Section 301 and antidumping duties on its innerspring entries. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion, after previously rejecting it for insufficiently pleaded facts, ordering Rayson and Cheng to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty and all unpaid duties, taxes and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in the case (U.S. v. Rayson Global, Inc. and Doris Cheng, CIT # 23-00201).

The Commerce Department properly calculated the antidumping duty rate for the non-individually investigated respondents in an AD review by averaging the identical adverse facts available rates of the two mandatory respondents, the Court of International Trade held on July 18. Judge Gary Katzmann held that while Commerce said it took a simple average of the AFA rates and not a weighted average of the rates, which is the "expected method" for determining the all-others rate, the resulting 21.1% rate isn't a deviation from the expected method and is thus "presumptively reasonable."