President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile challenged the Commerce Department's AD investigation on ceramic tile from India, arguing that the agency erred in its collapsing and affiliation analyses regarding the two mandatory respondents. The result of the investigation was a zero percent margin for the respondents, Antiqa Minerals and Win-Tel Ceramics (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).
The U.S. waited too long before seeking to collect on nearly $90,000 of unpaid antidumping duties for two entries in 2017 and 2018, plus $90,000 more in penalty fees, inkjet fabric rolls importer Courtside Market said June 20 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week ordered that two cases on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall be heard on an expedited basis (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president suspend the de minimis threshold to respond to a national emergency notwithstanding Section 321's limits on eliminating or modifying the threshold, the U.S. argued. Urging the Court of International Trade to side with the government in importer Detroit Axle's suit against the elimination of the de minimis threshold on Chinese goods, the U.S. said the IEEPA's language lets the president void pre-existing privileges granted by other authorities, such as Section 321 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Honey exporters led by Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company asked the Court of International Trade on June 17 to accept their amended complaint and overturn the clerical dismissal of their case challenging the 2021-23 antidumping duty review on raw honey from Vietnam (Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00085).
Responding to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification dispute, computer parts importer Atlas Power said the government was trying to raise a new argument that none of Atlas’ entries in question were eligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion because they were entered under a privileged status into a foreign-trade zone (Atlas Power LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).