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).
Exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl asked a panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear its case on the use of partial adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. Salzgitter argued that the panel seemingly ruled against its proposed methodology for addressing missing manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates based on a misunderstanding of the methodology (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The Commerce Department abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty investigation, which was filed one hour and 41 minutes late, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 4. Judge Todd Hughes filed a dissent in the case, noting that he believes "Commerce has extensive authority to enforce its own deadlines."
Importers Wego and Galleher didn't waive or forfeit their arguments against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2016-17 review period, the importers argued in a July 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Galleher Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
A special committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Judge Pauline Newman's "continued refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation" of her fitness to continue serving on the bench "constitutes continuing misconduct." Responding to the judge's motion for reconsideration and the committee's order to show cause regarding whether the CAFC Judicial Council should renew its one-year suspension of Newman from hearing cases, the committee recommended July 28 that the council extend the suspension for another year. The 98-year-old Newman had asked the council to reconsider her suspension.
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 July 28 sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Federal Circuit has a long line of cases upholding the policy and that, even if those cases didn't exist, Commerce didn't need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the policy.