The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 declined to reconsider its customs case finding importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are classified as "extract of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603. While the government said the court ignored that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids, Judge Joseph Laroski said he explicitly considered both arguments.
The U.S. filed its opening brief at the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to stop the flow of fentanyl are a valid exercise of IEEPA, adding that the tariffs are a proper expression of presidential policymaking in emergency situations.
Solar cell importers and exporters, led by the American Clean Power Association, moved the Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 to stay its ruling vacating the Commerce Department's 2022-2024 duty "pause" on the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Supreme Court set oral argument for the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Nov. 5, part of an attempt to hear the cases on an expedited basis (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The standing up by DOJ of the Trade Fraud Task Force indicates the Trump administration is pouring significantly more resources and attention into prosecuting tariff evasion and customs fraud, and will use the various criminal and civil enforcement tools at their disposal, various attorneys said.
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."