The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 18 stayed two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the appeal (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 21 decision remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 25. The case was brought by various exporters to challenge Commerce's primary surrogate country choice of Romania in the review, along with the agency's selection of specific surrogate value data for various inputs (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

Section 338 hasn't been implicitly repealed, and President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can also be upheld under Section 338, the Trump-aligned legal advocacy group America First Policy Institute argued in a proposed amicus reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments against its position from the 12 U.S. states and five importers challenging the IEEPA tariffs and another amicus brief filed by various legal scholars and former government officials, the institute argued that the states and amicus didn't offer any support for many of their claims (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

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

The U.S. pushed back July 16 against exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co.’s challenge to the Commerce Department’s surrogate value calculation of Vietnamese land rental prices in a countervailing duty review (see 2501270012). The government said Commerce’s use of Thai data was supported by substantial evidence (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).

Domestic chlorinated isocyanurates producer Bio-Lab argued in a July 15 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department should have used Mexico, not Romania, as the primary surrogate in an antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).

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).