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.
In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 12 affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's move to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. Judges Raymond Chen, Kimberly Moore and Tiffany Cunningham affirmed the trade court's ruling without an opinion under CAFC Rule 36 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit.
The U.S. and domestic producer Ecker Textiles this week defended the Court of International Trade’s ruling that an importer’s canvas banner matisse was covered by an antidumping duty order on artist canvas. They disagreed that the order was void for vagueness, saying at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the importer was trying to argue the order only covers the exact products made by domestic industries (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 7 questioned both exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke and the U.S. regarding the exporter's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate and the Commerce Department's use of Dillinger's sales price as the cost of production for non-prime steel plate. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Timothy Dyk and Alan Lourie's questions regarding the non-prime plate centered on whether the issue was foreclosed by the CAFC's previous holding in Dillinger France v. U.S. (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).
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.
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, defended Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission in one of his decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an April 28 brief, Dhuey argued that 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(2)(B) explicitly gave Vaden discretion to disclose the contested materials (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The International Trade Commission defended its bid for mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court of International Trade's ruling striking down the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses in injury proceedings. The ITC said that it has standing to vie for mandamus relief and that the trade court abused its discretion in undercutting the commission's policy regarding the submission of confidential information (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).