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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 7 questioned both exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke and the U.S. regarding the exporter's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate and the Commerce Department's use of Dillinger's sales price as the cost of production for non-prime steel plate. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Timothy Dyk and Alan Lourie's questions regarding the non-prime plate centered on whether the issue was foreclosed by the CAFC's previous holding in Dillinger France v. U.S. (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

CBP cannot unilaterally decide to reliquidate entries that were erroneously liquidated while subject to a suspension order from the Court of International Trade, the trade court held on May 8. Judge Gary Katzmann said an "enjoined party is not empowered to choose and implement the remedy for its own violations of an injunction," writing that that power is the court's alone.

President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs fail to satisfy the International Emergency Economic Powers Act's requirements by failing to identify an "unusual and extraordinary" threat in relying on "longstanding trade policy problems," 12 states, led by Oregon and Arizona, argued. Submitting a motion for a preliminary injunction against all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the states also said the reciprocal tariffs, and the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, don't "deal with" the threats they identify (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).

The Commerce Department properly relied on respondent Shakti Forge Industries' reported costs in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Sustaining the investigation after two remands, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce permissibly found Shakti's costs to be accurate after conducting an in-person verification of the respondent's facilities during the second remand period.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed both respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl and the U.S. in an antidumping duty case regarding the use of partial adverse facts available against Salzgitter for its failure to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).