The Commerce Department appropriately focused on the current availability of domestic steel as opposed to the availability at the time an importer placed a foreign order when considering Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said the focus on current availability is in line with the "purpose of the Section 232 import measures," which are meant to "increase and improve domestic capacity over time" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).

The Court of International Trade on April 29 told the 12 states challenging President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act they may file a brief laying out their position on a group of five importers' motion for summary judgment against Trump's reciprocal tariffs by May 8. The court said in a text-only order that the brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, doesn't bar the states from filing their own motion at a later date, nor will the brief be construed as a "waiver or forfeiture of any claim or argument."

The Court of International Trade on May 2 held that importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates "maintain the essence of fish" and are thus "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not "food preparations" under heading 2106.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer the power to impose tariffs, California argued at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Responding to the government's motion to transfer the state's challenge -- which centers on President Donald Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs -- to the Court of International Trade, California argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, since "IEEPA does not provide for tariffs" (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).

Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421, not “other” catalytic reactors under 3815, the Court of International Trade ruled April 29.

The U.S. offered its most fulsome defense of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs to date, submitting a reply to a group of five importers' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on April 29. The government argued that the text, context, history and purpose of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president impose tariffs and that IEEPA doesn't confer an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the president (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

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.

Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who served in that role in President Donald Trump's first term, told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that he thinks "there’s a reasonable chance the [Court of International Trade (CIT)] would enjoin" tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Trump used IEEPA to levy 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico over fentanyl and migration, as well as 20% tariffs on China over fentanyl, and used it to levy 10% tariffs on countries other than those three, and an additional 125% tariffs on Chinese goods.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 28 issued a pair of decisions rejecting challenges from three exporters to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate antidumping duty rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S.