The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 said the Commerce Department improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review.
The 12 states challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the Trump administration's claim that it will be irreparably harmed without a stay are undermined by administration officials' own statements (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).
The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of the financial statement of TMTE Metal Tech to calculate respondent Triune Technofab's constructed value in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. The result is a negative determination in the AD investigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3 sharply questioned counsel for exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. in its case alleging that the Commerce Department doesn't have the adequate legal authority for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases, which includes a rebuttable presumption that an exporter is controlled by the NME nation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The U.S. has asked the Court of International Trade to stay the remaining cases on its docket challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending its appeal of the trade court's recent decision vacating all tariffs thus far imposed under IEEPA. The government argued that a stay is "warranted," since "an appellate ruling would be binding on plaintiffs’ claims" at CIT and resources will be spared in not having to litigate the same issues (Princess Awesome v. United States, CIT # 25-00078) (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. United States, CIT # 25-00096).
In a complaint brought to the Court of International Trade on May 30, exporters Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited pushed back against the Commerce Department’s review of the antidumping duty order on Indian-origin glycine. Kumar was hit with adverse facts available after the Commerce Department found it failed to adequately report affiliation with four other companies (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00081).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave plaintiffs in a case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act until June 4 to respond to the government's motion to stay the D.C. district court's ruling finding that IEEPA doesn't confer tariff-setting authority. The government then has until June 6 to respond, setting up an expedited schedule on which the appellate court will hear the emergency stay motion, which the U.S. has said is crucial for ongoing U.S. trade negotiations (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).