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).
The Commerce Department improperly used the financial statements of Indonesian producer PT Suparma to set the surrogate financial ratios in the antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from Vietnam, since Suparma doesn't make merchandise comparable to respondent Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam, the respondent argued. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 28, Go-Pak said Commerce also erred in using a simple average of the average unit values for two different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings to value its paper input, since its input only falls under one of the subheadings (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).
The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public Aug. 29, sustained the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce permissibly found that no benefit was conferred through India's Advance Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system. Commerce countervails the withheld import duties under this scheme unless the foreign government has an "effective, systemic process for verifying the use of such exempted inputs or has carried out an examination of actual inputs to verify their use." The judge said the record supports the agency's finding that the Indian government "conducted an examination of the actual inputs involved" in respondent Balkrishna Industries' production of subject tires to "confirm which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what quantities."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said the president doesn't have unlimited tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Seven of the court's 11 total justices presiding over the case affirmed the Court of International Trade's conclusion that President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl exceed the president's authority under IEEPA.