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.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5 heard oral argument in a case on the Commerce Department's finding in the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was a de facto specific subsidy. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen pressed counsel for exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite and the U.S. government on whether the agency properly found that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" in Russia (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).

Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

Exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl asked a panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear its case on the use of partial adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. Salzgitter argued that the panel seemingly ruled against its proposed methodology for addressing missing manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates based on a misunderstanding of the methodology (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Commerce Department abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty investigation, which was filed one hour and 41 minutes late, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 4. Judge Todd Hughes filed a dissent in the case, noting that he believes "Commerce has extensive authority to enforce its own deadlines."

The Commerce Department abused its discretion in rejecting exporter Jindal Poly Films' affiliate questionnaire response as untimely in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India for the 2021 review period, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 1. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce failed to consider other factors in rejecting the submission, including the "early stage of the proceeding," the fact that Jindal was selected only after requests for review of all other companies were withdrawn and whether accuracy considerations outweighed the burden on Commerce.

The Commerce Department adequately explained its determinations regarding all the factors underlying a scope ruling on pencils made in the Philippines, though it failed to explain how it balanced these factors to find that the subject pencils fall under the scope of pencils from China, Judge M. Miller Baker held on July 31. Baker remanded the scope ruling "for the agency to provide the missing explanation."

All active judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 heard oral argument in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 11 judges peppered counsel for the government and the parties challenging the tariffs, which include five importers and 12 U.S. states, with questions about whether the statute authorizes tariffs at all; whether there are limits to that tariff authority, should it exist; and whether the major questions or non-delegation doctrines strip IEEPA of its ability to convey tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the importers failed to show "a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the threatened August 1, 2025 tariff" (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States, CIT # 25-00155).

The Court of International Trade's ruling that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption impermissibly repealed part of the Foreign Trade Zone Act, imported King Maker Marketing argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer added that it's "both absurd and anomalous" to impose a time limit on the recovery of duties and taxes under the drawback scheme as "beginning to run before those duties and taxes are paid" (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).