The likelihood of the Supreme Court striking down President Donald Trump's tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a "coin flip," various attorneys said during a Sept. 30 webinar hosted by The Budget Lab, a policy research center at Yale University. Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, an amicus in the IEEPA tariffs cases, noted a "very clear split" among trade lawyers and constitutional lawyers as to where the Supreme Court will come out on this issue.

Exporter Camel Group filed its motion for judgment against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's decision not to remove the company from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing that the decision wasn't backed by substantial evidence or supported by a reasoned explanation. Camel said FLETF used the wrong standard of review in assessing its petition for removal from the UFLPA Entity List, arguing that the task force should have used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of a "reasonable cause to believe" standard" (Camel Group v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).

The International Trade Commission disagreed Sept. 24 that it was basing its finding of critical circumstances for pea protein from China on the Commerce Department’s own independent critical circumstances determination (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

The Commerce Department on Sept. 26 stuck with its valuation of solar glass, an input in solar cells, and altered its adverse facts available calculations in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. The result left the AD rates for respondents Jinko Solar and Risen Energy unchanged, with Jinko receiving a 20.99% rate and Risen getting a 12.24% rate (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).

The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.

The case against the lists 3 and 4A tariffs is unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court or the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recent decision from the Federal Circuit upholding the tariffs likely gives the Trump administration greater confidence in using tariff authorities other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."

After the Court of International Trade’s remand of the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty review of Chinese-origin multilayered wood flooring (see 2504030070), the department maintained its decisions to both use a larger, less-specific dataset for calculating Tier II benchmarks over a smaller, more-specific one and to apply adverse facts available for the Chinese government’s refusal to provide government documents showing non-ownership (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00210).

A total of seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court in defense of President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the briefs, filed by the America First Policy Institute, urged the Supreme Court to sustain Trump's IEEPA tariff action under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, while another, penned by University of Virginia law professor Aditya Bamzai, detailed how wartime powers have historically included the power to tax and argued that IEEPA should be read to include these powers (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).