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 will likely turn to Section 301 to enact his plans for "reciprocal" tariffs, various trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Following the president's announcement of his reciprocal tariff plan, which will purportedly tackle "non-reciprocal trading arrangements" with many of the U.S.'s trading partners starting April 2, speculation ensued as to the precise scope of the tariffs and their legal bases.
The Trump administration plans to "aggressively" enforce the False Claims Act, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston said during the Federal Bar Association's qui tam conference last week, attorneys at McGuire Woods said. While most FCA enforcement action is taken in the field of healthcare, Granston said that DOJ will center future FCA enforcement on other Trump policy priorities, including customs fraud and "illegal foreign trade practices."
It's unclear if the Court of International Trade has the authority to order reliquidation on imports to "increase duties to the detriment of importers," the Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a post-argument brief at the Court of International Trade. SEIA said the trade court should look "skeptically" on the government's request seeking such liquidation, and "require a compelling case based on the equities for granting such relief" (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT # 20-03941).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
President Donald Trump's directive in his proclamation expanding Section 232 steel tariffs to assess penalties for the misclassification of entries resulting in non-payment of the duties without regard for "evidence of mitigating factors" may run afoul of existing customs laws, trade lawyers said. Even if the directive stays within the bounds of the current statutory scheme, expect more prior disclosures and proactive steps to ensure the proper customs treatment of steel entries, the lawyers added.
The inaugural use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which saw President Donald Trump set a 10% duty on all goods from China (see 2502030044), has sparked plenty of speculation as to how these tariffs could be challenged in court. One such argument is a statutory claim rooted in the text of IEEPA.
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.
The Solar Energy Industries Association urged the Court of International Trade to not allow CBP to reliquidate entries of solar panels that were subject to a preliminary injunction from CIT, saying during oral arguments this week that there's not a strong enough reason to reverse CBP's inadvertent liquidation. The U.S. argued that a court order was needed to "effectuate" the court's suspension of liquidation and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in the case (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
President Donald Trump's recent expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs likely would survive a judicial challenge, particularly in light of the string of cases challenging the Section 232 duties imposed during his first term, trade lawyers told us. Thomas Beline, partner at Cassidy Levy, said Trump's move to eliminate the country-specific arrangements and product exclusions is "likely defensible," since the statute lets the president take any action he deems necessary where an agreement is "not being carried out or is ineffective."