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 Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.

The libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation opposed the government's bid to stay its case at the Court of International Trade challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently filing a motion for summary judgment and expedited consideration of its case (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a supplemental brief in their lawsuit against all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the states said the Court of International Trade should enjoin enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs, set aside the agency decisions implementing the tariffs and declare the IEEPA tariffs "unlawful" (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

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 Trump administration on May 9 issued an executive order declaring that it will disfavor criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses in an effort to combat overregulation. Criminal customs enforcement likely won't be affected by the order, since the administration is placing a larger emphasis on trade enforcement and these cases arise out of statutes and not federal regulations, trade lawyers told us.

The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 12 affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's move to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. Judges Raymond Chen, Kimberly Moore and Tiffany Cunningham affirmed the trade court's ruling without an opinion under CAFC Rule 36 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).

The Institute for Policy Integrity, an economic law think tank housed at the NYU School of Law, filed an amicus brief in the lead case at the Court of International Trade on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to discuss the "major questions" doctrine. The institute said the plaintiffs filing the case, represented by conservative legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, "do not fully state the doctrine or properly explain why it is triggered here" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Pushing back against a motion to transfer an International Emergency Economic Powers Act challenge to the Court of International Trade, educational materials importers led by Learning Resources said May 7 that the case’s jurisdictional question overlaps with its substantive one -- whether IEEPA actually permits the president to levy tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed counsel for respondent Hyundai Steel Co. during May 9 oral argument on whether the company's collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built in South Korea can be considered countervailable subsidies. Judges Raymond Chen, Tiffany Cunningham and Kimberly Moore repeatedly asked whether Hyundai's case is precluded by the court's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).