The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo rejecting the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes doesn't call for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revisit a decision sustaining the sanctions designation of former Afghan government official Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, the U.S. said this week (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051), is relevant to the consequential litigation concerning the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 duties (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Congressional Research Service on July 26 released a report breaking down appellate decisions issued in recent years applying the U.S. Supreme Court's now-defunct Chevron standard of deference. The high court swapped this standard for a requirement of de novo review of federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (see 2406280051).
A U.S. District Court in Kentucky on July 24 said that the U.S. statute barring the smuggling of goods from the U.S. covers only material items and doesn't extend to emails. U.S. District Judge for Western Kentucky David Hale dismissed a charge against defense contractor Quadrant Magnetics, along with several of its employees, which said the parties smuggled goods from the U.S. by "emailing magnet schematics to Chinese manufacturers."
In the wake of Loper Bright, the U.S. and two defendant-intervenors raised three different sets of arguments July 25 in defense of the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the statute governing sunset reviews. All three opposed a plaintiff softwood lumber exporter’s claim that its case had been substantially strengthened by the demise of the Chevron doctrine (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The Commerce Department improperly used an invoice date as the date of sale of goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret told the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment on July 23, Kaptan said Commerce should have used the contract date as the date of sale (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).
Litigants sparred at a July 23 oral argument at the Court of International Trade on whether the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China cover wheels shipped from Thailand with either a rim or a disc made in China. The parties disagreed on whether a prior scope ruling from the Commerce Department spoke to whether these "mixed" goods -- wheels made with either a Chinese-origin rim or disc, but not both -- are covered by the AD/CVD scope (Asia Wheel v. United States, CIT # 23-00096).
U.S. solar cell company Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy argued on July 22 that Section 318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930 didn't permit the Commerce Department to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these products from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Supreme Court's recent decision eliminating the standard of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051) "will likely result in more litigation in the already heavily litigated world of international trade," two ArentFox Schiff partners said in a client alert.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upending the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes requires a more demanding review of the Office of Foreign Assets Control's use of the Global Magnitsky Act and International Emergency Economic Powers Act, sanctioned Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, argued (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).