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.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion refused to invalidate its past order instructing CBP to reliquidate Target Corp.'s metal-top ironing tables, saying that doing so would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Courts Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, Judge Leo Gordon said.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. voluntarily dismissed its conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade. The case, involving the company's former counsel Daniel Pickard, now partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, was previously stayed pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission. Amsted earlier this month also dismissed the ITC matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the importer filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal (see 2307050052) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00316).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman will begin mediation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with three of her colleagues leading an investigation on her fitness to continue serving on the bench, on Aug. 3. Per a joint notice of continuation of deadline to file a report on mediation, the parties said that they set a date with Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed to preside over the mediation (see 2307110045). Griffith sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020 (Newman v. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
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.
Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir filed a corrected version of its opening brief in a countervailing duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court rejected the company's efforts to add new claims to its originally filed brief (see 2306300060). The government and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon fought against the effort to add new claims to the brief, claiming that it was an attempt to shoehorn arguments on the agency's new regulations concerning untimely submitted files. The new brief filed by TKT makes corrections requested by the clerk of the court in a case on the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in which the Commerce Department used adverse facts available due to a missed filing deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Court of International Trade erred by sustaining the Commerce Department’s conclusions regarding cost smoothing, cost reconciliation, and differential pricing in the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, respondent Marmem said in a July 10 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1877).
The Court of International Trade in a July 13 opinion dismissed a lawsuit from PrimeSource Building Products against President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products pursuant to the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of July 13 opinions dismissed two lawsuits, one from importer PrimeSource Building Products and the other from Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products, challenging President Donald Trump's move to expand the Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives." The order comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate after finding that the expansion, made beyond procedural time limits, was legal. Relying on its prior decision in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., the court said that a tariff move made outside these limits is permissible so long as it fits under the duties' original plan of action.