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."

Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company took to the Court of International Trade on July 18 to get declaratory and injunctive relief from President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods. The importers argued that the tariffs, which are set to come into effect on Aug. 1, exceed Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and represent an unconstitutional delegation of power (Johanna Foods v. United States, CIT # 25-00155).

The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against surety company XL Specialty Insurance on July 17, seeking over $3.6 million in unpaid duties and interested owed on customs bonds. The government said XL "materially breached the terms of the subject bonds" by refusing to pay following CBP's demand for payment (United States v. XL Specialty Insurance, CIT # 25-00154).

The U.S. opposed two importers' bid to have the Supreme Court hear their challenge to the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a chance to hear the case. The government argued that the high court shouldn't step in before either the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had a chance to address the claims against the IEEPA tariffs, particularly since both courts are hearing the appeals on very expedited timelines (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).