The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 18 stayed two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the appeal (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 21 decision remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 25. The case was brought by various exporters to challenge Commerce's primary surrogate country choice of Romania in the review, along with the agency's selection of specific surrogate value data for various inputs (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).
Section 338 hasn't been implicitly repealed, and President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can also be upheld under Section 338, the Trump-aligned legal advocacy group America First Policy Institute argued in a proposed amicus reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments against its position from the 12 U.S. states and five importers challenging the IEEPA tariffs and another amicus brief filed by various legal scholars and former government officials, the institute argued that the states and amicus didn't offer any support for many of their claims (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski held July 21 that importer Hanon Systems’ aluminum foil originated from China, not South Korea, sustaining a Commerce Department decision that analyzed the five mandatory factors in a country-of-origin analysis and found only two weighed in favor of China.
The U.S. filed its reply brief in the lead case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing, among other things, that the Court of International Trade doesn't have the power to issue a nationwide injunction vacating the tariffs and that IEEPA plainly allows the president to impose tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Domestic chlorinated isocyanurates producer Bio-Lab argued in a July 15 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department should have used Mexico, not Romania, as the primary surrogate in an antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 denied importer Simplified's motion to reconsider the court's decision to stay the company's case against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the lead IEEPA tariff case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng for negligently failing to pay ordinary, Section 301 and antidumping duties on its innerspring entries. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion, after previously rejecting it for insufficiently pleaded facts, ordering Rayson and Cheng to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty and all unpaid duties, taxes and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in the case (U.S. v. Rayson Global, Inc. and Doris Cheng, CIT # 23-00201).
The Commerce Department properly calculated the antidumping duty rate for the non-individually investigated respondents in an AD review by averaging the identical adverse facts available rates of the two mandatory respondents, the Court of International Trade held on July 18. Judge Gary Katzmann held that while Commerce said it took a simple average of the AFA rates and not a weighted average of the rates, which is the "expected method" for determining the all-others rate, the resulting 21.1% rate isn't a deviation from the expected method and is thus "presumptively reasonable."