The Court of International Trade on July 10 heard oral argument in importer Detroit Axle's case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani pressed counsel for both the U.S. and the importer on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to take such action, given the specific language at play in both IEEPA and 19 U.S.C. 1321, the de minimis statute (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10 denied exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of its antidumping duty case on 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. Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen denied the request (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief last week in support of its motion to dismiss the case, the government argued that Eteros' case doesn't challenge the "administration and enforcement" of an import transaction" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA limiting the ability for lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions doesn't affect the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 12 U.S. states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 8. The states, led by Oregon, argued in a reply brief that the trade court's injunction, which applied to parties not part of the lawsuit against the tariffs, is necessary to afford the states complete relief (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 3 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case concerning the Commerce Department's decision to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel's collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. The court upheld the Court of International Trade's decision sustaining Commerce's decision without an opinion (see 2505120018). At issue was Hyundai's contract with the South Korean government to build the Incheon North Harbor port, ownership of which reverted back to the government after construction was complete but with Hyundai receiving the right to collect fees from third-party users of the port as payment. At oral argument, the CAFC judges pressed Hyundai on whether the issue was settled in the court's 1999 ruling in AK Steel v. U.S., which upheld the decision to countervail exporter POSCO's exemptions from dockyard fees and collection of third-party fees at the Kwangyang Bay Industrial Estate port facility, which it built then transferred ownership of to the Korean government (see 2404080057) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
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.
Defending against a motion to dismiss its Section 1581(i) case challenging the Commerce Department’s refusal to open a changed circumstances review, wood mouldings and millwork importer Houston Shutters said that precedent actually supports its case (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).
A Thai wheel exporter and three importers filed their opening bid at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenge a trade court ruling that their products, wheels made with some Chinese-origin components, originated from China rather than Thailand (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1689).
Importers Wego and Galleher either waived or forfeited any arguments they may have against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this month, the government said the importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain Commerce's remand results in which it calculated the separate rate, waiving any claims against the remand results (Galleher Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
Exporters led by Bioparques de Occidente agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico originally opened in 1996 but subject to a series of suspension agreements negotiated between the Commerce Department and the Mexican government. The case was previously stayed after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).