Importer Cozy Comfort filed its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 25, arguing that the Court of International Trade was wrong to find that the company's product, The Comfy, is a pullover and not a blanket (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
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 Court of International Trade dismissed Aug. 21 a case brought by Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving in an attempt to secure a lower antidumping duty cash deposit rate for some of its entries.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to reject an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire that had already been rescinded.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Aug. 19 the Commerce Department’s rejection of an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire the department had already rescinded, having realized it had been issued in error. After the rejection, the exporter, Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer, received the China-wide rate for the 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese-origin aluminum wire and cable. In the nine-page opinion, CAFC explained that the questionnaire was rescinded because Jin Tiong failed to file a timely separate rate application (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
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.
A petition from two importers for the Supreme Court to review whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for tariffs will be considered by the high court on Sept. 29. After briefing concluded on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, the matter was distributed for the court's Sept. 29 conference, where it will determine which cases make up its October 2025 term (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
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.
Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).