Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body on June 23 agreed to establish dispute panels in China's case against Canada's tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and steel and aluminum products and Canada's dispute against Chinese import duties on Canadian agricultural and fisheries products, the WTO announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week ordered that two cases on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall be heard on an expedited basis (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).
Counsel for the importer plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has no plans to preemptively petition the Supreme Court to review the case in light of plaintiffs in a separate IEEPA tariffs suit doing so. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center and counsel for the CAFC IEEPA plaintiffs, told us that he has "no plans to file a petition with the Supreme Court prior to a decision by the Federal Circuit," though he said "circumstances could change that."
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president suspend the de minimis threshold to respond to a national emergency notwithstanding Section 321's limits on eliminating or modifying the threshold, the U.S. argued. Urging the Court of International Trade to side with the government in importer Detroit Axle's suit against the elimination of the de minimis threshold on Chinese goods, the U.S. said the IEEPA's language lets the president void pre-existing privileges granted by other authorities, such as Section 321 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 18 declined to tie the briefing schedule in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the briefing schedule in a similar appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, briefing will conclude first at the Federal Circuit, with CAFC set to hear oral argument on July 31 (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The Supreme Court on June 20 denied a motion from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind to expedite consideration of their petition to have the high court take up their lawsuit against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The European Commission on June 17 referred Portugal to the Court of Justice for failing to "fully transpose into national law" the EU directive "laying down the general arrangements for" excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. All EU member states were required to fully transpose the EU directive regarding the excise duties, yet Portugal has yet to do so, the commission said. The regulation "sets up an EU-wide certification system for small alcohol producers to facilitate their access to lower excise duty rates across the Union" and combats fraud by "clarifying the conditions for the application of the exemptions for alcohol not intended for human consumption." The commission said this "transposition gap" affects the "cross-border trade of alcohol" made by small producers of wine to other member states and of the alcohol not meant for human consumption.