The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 issued an administrative stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency motion to stay the CIT decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 extended a stay in an antidumping duty case after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit. Judge Timothy Dyk noted that the parties told the court that, if no party files an appeal in the related case, the present case before CAFC will be withdrawn. As a result, Dyk extended the stay and said the parties have until seven days after June 16 to tell the court how they plan to proceed (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
The U.S. filed a May 19 supplemental brief in a 2021 case involving dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand to address the case’s last “remaining contention” after the importer lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
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.
In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 12 affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's move to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. Judges Raymond Chen, Kimberly Moore and Tiffany Cunningham affirmed the trade court's ruling without an opinion under CAFC Rule 36 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit.
The U.S. and domestic producer Ecker Textiles this week defended the Court of International Trade’s ruling that an importer’s canvas banner matisse was covered by an antidumping duty order on artist canvas. They disagreed that the order was void for vagueness, saying at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the importer was trying to argue the order only covers the exact products made by domestic industries (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).