The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).
While many attorneys believe that one of the cases on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs is on a collision course with the Supreme Court, questions remain about exactly when the high court will review the case and in what form. One possibility would see the lead appeal, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which currently sits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, head to the Supreme Court's emergency, or "shadow," docket.
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.