In oral argument Jan. 16 regarding the Commerce Department's 2021 administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif asked counsel for exporters and the government what documentation might be required to prove to Commerce that a private Chinese company wasn’t government-controlled (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).

If the Supreme Court eliminates the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it may not mean the return of the de minimis exemption, which President Donald Trump also ended via IEEPA, trade lawyers told us.

The Commerce Department confirmed its decision to impose a 160% countervailing duty rate for exporter Tau-Ken Temir in the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan despite a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, CIT # 21-00173).

The Court of International Trade erred when it failed to find that importer BASF's food additive betatene is classified as a natural or synthetically reproduced provitamin under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936, BASF argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer said that it clearly established that its product was "prima facie classifiable under heading 2936, meaning that as a matter of law, classification under heading 2106," as a dietary supplement, "cannot stand" (BASF Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1056).

The Court of International Trade erred in holding that the rule established in the USMCA requiring parties seeking CIT review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings to provide proper notice is a jurisdictional rule, exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 13 opening brief (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1155).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 confirmed that the government's stipulation regarding the availability of refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "applies to all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs."

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 U.S. argued on Jan. 12 that the "undisputed facts" show that importer Lanxess' polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to speed up the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- can't accelerate a chemical reaction "in its condition as imported," thus removing it from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3915 as a "reaction accelerator" (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).

AD/CVD evasion petitioner U.S. OCTG Manufacturers Association opposed a group of importers' bid for leave to amend their complaints in an Enforce and Protect Act case to add two counts to challenge CBP's initiation of the challenged EAPA investigations as "untimely" and the interim measures imposed as a violation of the importers' due process rights (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00182).

The U.S. either "concedes, does not dispute, or misses the point of, [importer Cozy Comfort's] key arguments" in the importer's appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a pullover and not a blanket, Cozy argued in a Jan. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).