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 U.S. on June 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the D.C. district court's decision last week finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority (see 2505290037). The government said that while the district court's preliminary injunction only extends to the plaintiffs, two small importers, the ruling undermines the president's ability to negotiate trade deals and wield broader diplomatic power (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
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.
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 following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision from April 29 on the classification of the company's catalyst blocks, according to a notice of appeal. The trade court said the catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and not as "other" catalytic reactors under heading 3815 (see 2504300067). Mitsubishi had requested Section 301 exclusions for its products but the importer failed to specify a particular HTS heading for the exclusion. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion that would apply to the products didn't actually cover Mitsubishi's goods, but even if had, the exclusion was drafted to cover products under heading 3815, the court said (Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00573).
The Court of International Trade gave plaintiffs in the two successful challenges to President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act more time to respond to the government's motion to stay the trade court's decision to vacate Trump's executive orders imposing the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public May 29, said failing to act as a mandatory respondent isn't "unrelated to government control" for purposes of getting a separate antidumping duty rate. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce isn't required to establish that companies are part of the Chinese government, because that is the presumption. Rather, he said, it's the companies that must show evidence if they are independent of the government.
Following decisions from the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questions remain about which court has the right view on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases on IEEPA tariffs. Relatedly, the issue affects where importers may file suit to contest the imposition of IEEPA tariffs or seek refunds of duties paid under tariff action found to be unlawful.
Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).