Adverse facts available were warranted for a Vietnamese electric wire exporter’s reporting of its inputs’ countries of origin, the U.S. said Sept. 8 in response to an exporter’s motion for judgment opposing a circumvention ruling (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held argument on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's decision to transfer a case against the legality of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs and Section 232 tariffs as applied to tribal members to the Court of International Trade. One of the judges, Judge William Fletcher, appeared skeptical of the government's claim that the court can't review the district court's transfer order (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

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 government, namely CBP and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, should be stopped from denying the application of Section 301 China tariff exclusions to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas' selective catalytic reduction imports, Mitsubishi told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opening brief on Sept. 12, Mitsubishi said CBP and USTR "misrepresented the original grant of the exclusions to Mitsubishi" when they approved the requests, leading the importer to rely on these "misrepresentations to its detriment" (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1828).

The Commerce Department properly decided not to collapse an Italian antidumping duty respondent with its Romanian input supplier on the grounds that the input supplier isn't a "producer" of subject merchandise as defined by the AD statute, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 15. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's justification isn't impermissibly post hoc, despite the fact that it wasn't established during the challenged AD review, since the issue is "one of statutory construction."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided Sept. 12 to stay proceedings in California's case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it denied the government's stay request in a similar case brought by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe. Oral argument in the tribal members' lawsuit remains scheduled for Sept. 17 before Judges William Fletcher, Ronald Gould and Ana de Alba (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations. Judge Timothy Reif said that no party objected to Commerce's remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

The Court of International Trade properly found that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 11 reply brief. The government said CIT properly defined the term "importations" according to both common meaning and judicial precedent as "foreign merchandise coming into the United States" (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use (T-type) tires fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The position represents a reversal of the agency's previous decision to exclude the tires from the scope of the order (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The U.S. renewed its motions to pause proceedings in two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a pair of cases on the same issue. Plaintiffs in both appeals, the State of California and members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, opposed the renewed motions (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).