The Court of International Trade on July 18 denied importer Simplified's motion to reconsider the court's decision to stay the company's case against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the lead IEEPA tariff case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).

A group of constitutional scholars, legal historians, a former appellate judge, a former attorney general and three former U.S. senators urged the Supreme Court on July 17 to take up two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The amici argued that President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs clearly violate the constitutional order and, if upheld, would let the president use IEEPA " to reshape U.S. economic policy, and indeed the global economy more generally, without involving Congress" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 17 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case following its decision to deny exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of the court's decision. In its decision, CAFC Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

Appellants and domestic mattress petitioners objected July 8 to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit order to remove mattress importer Zinus’ own appeal from the combined appeal (see 2506250052) (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

The U.S. is trying to rehash settled issues in a customs suit on the classification of Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft, Honeywell argued in a July 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While the government argued that the court should have performed a GRI 2(a) analysis, Honeywell argued that no such analysis was needed and that, even assuming GRI 2 is applicable, "the result is the same" that the parts are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

Information collected under the Export Control Reform Act is “presumptively withheld” from Freedom of Information Act requests, the U.S. said July 14 in a case involving the disclosure of documents related to an addition to the Entity List (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).

Importer Gum Products International filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on July 17 to contest the Commerce Department's scope rulings concerning the company's oilfield equipment lubricant and food ingredient products. In both scope determinations, Commerce said the importer's products fall under the scope of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China (Gum Products International v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00108, -00109).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. on July 15 opposed importer Simplified's bid to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its stay of proceedings in its case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that Simplified's case will be resolved by the current appeal on the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).