The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3 sharply questioned counsel for exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. in its case alleging that the Commerce Department doesn't have the adequate legal authority for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases, which includes a rebuttable presumption that an exporter is controlled by the NME nation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The U.S. has asked the Court of International Trade to stay the remaining cases on its docket challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending its appeal of the trade court's recent decision vacating all tariffs thus far imposed under IEEPA. The government argued that a stay is "warranted," since "an appellate ruling would be binding on plaintiffs’ claims" at CIT and resources will be spared in not having to litigate the same issues (Princess Awesome v. United States, CIT # 25-00078) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. United States, CIT # 25-00096).
Joseph Barloon, who was a general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during Donald Trump's first term, told Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that he believes in rules-based trade.
The U.S. sought partial dismissal May 7 of power cables importer PowerTec Solutions’ 2022 case seeking Section 301 duty refunds. Specifically, it said that one of the importer’s administrative protests was insufficient to support a subsequent legal challenge (PowerTec Solutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).
In a complaint brought to the Court of International Trade on May 30, exporters Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited pushed back against the Commerce Department’s review of the antidumping duty order on Indian-origin glycine. Kumar was hit with adverse facts available after the Commerce Department found it failed to adequately report affiliation with four other companies (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00081).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave plaintiffs in a case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act until June 4 to respond to the government's motion to stay the D.C. district court's ruling finding that IEEPA doesn't confer tariff-setting authority. The government then has until June 6 to respond, setting up an expedited schedule on which the appellate court will hear the emergency stay motion, which the U.S. has said is crucial for ongoing U.S. trade negotiations (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana rejected four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe's bid to get the Montana court to reconsider its decision to transfer a challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen said that now that the trade court has made an "express finding of its own jurisdiction," when it vacated the executive orders imposed by President Donald Trump implementing tariffs under IEEPA, "the Court concludes that transfer remains the appropriate action" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D.Mont. # 4:25-00026).
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 on June 2 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian forged steel fluid end blocks, rejecting claims from the petitioners, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., that the agency should have expanded its use of adverse facts available. Judge Stephen Vaden said "neither statute nor case law requires such an inequitable result," given the limited nature of the gaps on the record.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2 said the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction via Section 1581(i) to hear California's challenge to all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs are laws of the U.S. for purposes of Section 1581(i), since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the law implementing the HTS, 19 U.S.C. 3004, says the HTS includes modifications made by the president (State of California v. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).