The 12 states that recently launched a lawsuit against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act will begin working on a preliminary injunction motion against the tariffs "in the near future," Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield told us. Rayfield was confident in the prospect of being able to show that Oregon and its many public institutions will suffer "irreparable harm" without the injunction and that a judge will be willing to question the validity of Trump's declaration that bilateral trade deficits amount to an "unusual and extraordinary" threat.
The District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen rested the decision on two prior cases that found challenges to tariff action taken under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, to belong in the U.S. Customs Court, the trade court's predecessor. While the plaintiffs said IEEPA has more restricted authority than TWEA, the judge said IEEPA has the "same operative language" as TWEA. The court said the plaintiffs failed to show how the "limits placed on the IEEPA’s grant of authority affect" CIT's jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, have already filed a notice of appeal, declaring that they will take the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an April 22 confidential decision remanded the International Trade Commission's injury determination on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco and Russia. A docket entry from the court said on remand the ITC can "take new evidence, reconsider existing evidence, or take any other action allowed by its procedures" to reach a conclusion supported by substantial evidence (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against respondent Kumar Industries for failing to respond to the best of its ability in demonstrating that it's not affiliated with two unnamed companies, the Court of International Trade held on April 23. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce's request for information on the alleged affiliations "should not have come as a surprise," adding that it's the respondent's burden to sufficiently populate the record.
Four wheel exporters will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the inclusion of trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China. Filing four notices of appeal, exporters Asia Wheel Co., Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel, Trailstar and Dexter Distribution Group f/k/a Textrail said they will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling (see 2502210039) (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
The Court of International Trade ruled April 22 that filling out a single mandatory importer questionnaire response at the beginning of an International Trade Commission injury investigation isn’t enough for an importer to establish itself as a party to the proceeding.
Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. has constitutional and statutory standing to challenge a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public April 22. However, Judge Claire Kelly dismissed Jiaxing Hoshine's claim against CBP's issuance of the WRO for being untimely, finding that it was brought after the statute of limitations had run out.
The Commerce Department cannot use the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 22. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said that it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to "data sets that do not satisfy the statistical assumptions."
The Court of International Trade on April 22 denied a group of five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the companies "have not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur" before the court considers their motion for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs.