The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (see 2508280047) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
President Donald Trump said that the administration will petition the Supreme Court on Sept. 3 to make an "expedited ruling" on the legality of tariffs he imposed on every country through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.
The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Sept. 6 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
CBP unlawfully applied 10% Section 301 duties to importer Shaw Industries Group's Chinese flooring entries, since the goods were subject to an exclusion from the tariffs, Shaw argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Shaw Industries Group v. United States, CIT # 21-00400).
The Commerce Department permissibly decided not to countervail India's Advanced Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system, in the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Aug. 29.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).
Fariha Kabir, a former international trade litigation attorney at CBP, has left the agency to join Faegre Drinker as an associate, she announced on LinkedIn. Kabir had worked at CBP since 2021, helping with the litigation of customs matters before the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including cases on tariff classification and value, the exclusion or detention of import entries, and CBP regulations.
The U.S. supported Aug. 27 the Commerce Department’s decision, after a voluntary remand, not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2018 review period (see 2507140055) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
All parties to a dispute over an antidumping duty review on Japanese-origin flat-rolled steel told Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani on Aug. 18 that they think the trade court must address questions surrounding the review’s mandatory respondent’s U.S. sales dates (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).