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).
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).
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 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.