The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public May 29, said failing to act as a mandatory respondent isn't "unrelated to government control" for purposes of getting a separate antidumping duty rate. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce isn't required to establish that companies are part of the Chinese government, because that is the presumption. Rather, he said, it's the companies that must show evidence if they are independent of the government.
Following decisions from the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questions remain about which court has the right view on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases on IEEPA tariffs. Relatedly, the issue affects where importers may file suit to contest the imposition of IEEPA tariffs or seek refunds of duties paid under tariff action found to be unlawful.
Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Importer King Maker Marketing on May 29 said it will appeal a Court of International Trade decision issued earlier this month finding that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption (see 2505150038). The trade court said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry, adding that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided that the five-year period in which to make a drawback claims runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. Due to the ruling, King Maker's case challenging the rejection of its claims for substitution unused merchandise drawback was tossed as untimely (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The end of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed over fentanyl smuggling from China, Canada and Mexico is on hold until an appellate court decides if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal for those purposes.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 29. A day after the Court of International Trade vacated and permanently enjoined all the tariff executive orders issued under IEEPA by President Donald Trump, the D.C. court went a step further and categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't include the power to impose tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-1248).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Importer APS Auto Parts Specialist on May 28 dismissed two of its Court of International Trade cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. In both cases, APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for APS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, -00268).
Importer AM Stone & Cabinets May 22 sought dismissal of one of its challenges to Commerce Department administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz countertops. Its case had argued that Commerce wrongly hit it with adverse facts available to determine that its products were made in China, not Malaysia (see 2501170048) (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00243).