To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.
Exporter Bridgestone Americas Tires opposed March 25 the U.S. motion to consolidate two cases regarding the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (see 2503060053) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
Canada opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on March 5 to challenge the new U.S.-imposed 25% tariff on all non-energy goods and 10% tariff on energy goods from Canada, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "as well as the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement." Canada said that the U.S. measures "appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations" under GATT and TFA provisions.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Feb. 28 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Alexandra Hess, a former official at CBP, has rejoined Cassidy Levy as a partner in the Washington, D.C., office, the firm announced on LinkedIn. At CBP, Hess served as branch chief for entry process and duty refunds in the Office of Regulations & Rulings, where she "issued rulings and advice" on "the entry process, duty drawback, de minimis, reconciliation, bonding, antidumping and countervailing duties, temporary importation under bond, foreign trade zones, right to make entry, broker compliance and management, and quota," the firm said.
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 unreasonably found that a sales-based particular market situation doesn't exist in Turkey, thus erring in picking Turkey as a third country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on melamine from Qatar, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. argued in a Feb. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).
The Commerce Department erred in using a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents, importers led by Galleher Corp. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Galleher argued the use of the AFA rate "punishes" the separate rate firms for respondent Sino-Maple's "lack of cooperation" and leads to an "aberrational margin that does not bear any relationship to the actual dumping margins of the separate rate companies" (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
China opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on Feb. 5 to challenge the new 10% tariff imposed by the U.S. on all goods from China, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. China said that not only do the duties violate the U.S. government's "Schedule of Concessions and Commitments," they're also "discriminatory and protectionist in nature."
President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the duty-free de minimis threshold for goods from China, issued as part of his 10% tariff hike on Chinese products, likely will face legal challenges due to the economic importance of the de minimis rule, customs attorney Lawrence Friedman told us. However, many questions remain on the precise scope of any resulting change, along with the legal theory underpinning it.