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).
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").
The Court of International Trade on June 3 left the question of whether to stay its ruling vacating all executive orders imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said that CAFC's "impending consideration of the motion to stay before it makes it unnecessary for this court to rule on the USCIT Motions to Stay" (V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT # 25-00066) (The State of Oregon v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, CIT # 25-00077).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, pending the government's appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Rudolph Contreras said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's negative final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on bootless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's use of financial statements from Indian producer TMTE Metal Tech to determine constructed value, rejecting claims from petitioner Edsal Manufacturing that the agency improperly accepted untimely information from respondent Triune Technofab about the public availability of the TMTE data and that the TMTE statements weren't publicly available. Barnett also rejected Edsal's claim that Commerce erroneously treated statements from Indian producer Mekins Industries as per se invalid due to the presence of countervailable subsidies.
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 30 order remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Claire Kelly sustained Commerce's valuation of air freight but sent back the agency's valuation of solar glass under Romanian Harmonized System subheading 7007.19.80 and its methodology for calculating adverse facts available. The judge also sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate" for exporters JA Solar and BYD. Kelly gave the parties until June 5 to review the confidential information in the decision before the court releases a public version (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).
Importer FCMT filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade last week challenging CBP's appraisement of its apparel entries. In all three cases, the importer argued that CBP failed to use the products' transaction value to appraise the merchandise and that CBP engaged in an "arbitrary and fictitious appraisement" of the merchandise (FCMT v. United States, CIT #s 21-00242, -00243, -00247).
Georgetown University law professor Jennifer Hillman said that while she expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take months to decide if the tariff actions under emergency powers weren't legal, the court might not stay the vacation of the orders during that time.
The U.S. and Detroit Axle, an importer challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products, sparred at the Court of International Trade on whether to stay the company's case in light of the trade court's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The Commerce Department wasn't required to broaden its use of adverse facts available based on small reporting errors from the respondent, the Court of International Trade held on June 2. During verification conducted on remand in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian steel fluid end blocks, Commerce found two errors from respondent Bharat Forge: its reported content of molybdenum, a steel input, for one steel grade and its failure to report "parts" costs for two control numbers. Judge Stephen Vaden rejected the petitioners' claims that these errors indicate broader reliability concerns in Bharat's data, finding that Commerce had no need to "apply a broader adverse inference," since the errors were small.
The District Court for Northern California on June 3 dismissed California's challenge to tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. 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, Section 3004, says presidential action modifying the HTS is part of the HTS. Scott then dismissed the case instead of transferring, per California's request, to let the state appeal the decision.