The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision vacating all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the government's appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service merely said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The government withdrew its emergency stay motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 3 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs pending the government's appeal of the decision (see 2506030048). The U.S. said Judge Rudolph Contreras' decision staying his judgment "renders moot the government's motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal. The government is also seeking an emergency stay of the Court of International Trade's decision vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under IEEPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though CAFC has issued an administrative stay while it mulls the emergency stay bid (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Mediation at the Court of International Trade in a customs penalty suit between the U.S. and importer Katana Racing resulted in a settlement of all issues, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reported on June 6 (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
In a decision made public June 6, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese solar cells so the department could rework its valuation of an input, solar glass, and its adverse facts available calculation.
The Court of International Trade on June 5 sent back the Commerce Department's new shipper review of exporter Co May under the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam after the petitioner, the Catfish Farmers of America, challenged whether Co May's single U.S. sale was bona fide. Judge Jane Restani sent the review back so Commerce can address its "profitability analysis," and specifically, so the agency can look at "antidumping duty expenses and sales between likely affiliated parties."
The Court of International Trade on June 9 sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling excluding exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use spare tires (T-type tires) from the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce improperly added a requirement in the order's scope that the tires be of "regular use," since this term doesn't appear in the "statutory language" and is "belied by the terms of the Order itself."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction on all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances." In addition, the court said all active judges will hear the case, as opposed to the court's traditional three-judge panel approach, in light of the "issues of exceptional importance" presented by the matter.
The Commerce Department failed to follow the "procedural prerequisites" for changing its position on remand when using adverse facts available against exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held on June 5. Remanding the review for a third time, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce ran "afoul of the most basic of administrative law requirements" when it "falsely claimed to keep its rationale the same" for applying AFA "while quietly changing its position."
The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, an antidumping duty petitioner, told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision regarding respondent Assan Aluminyum's duty drawback adjustment is relevant for its case also involving a duty drawback adjustment claim from Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).