The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said the president doesn't have unlimited tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Seven of the court's 11 total justices presiding over the case affirmed the Court of International Trade's conclusion that President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl exceed the president's authority under IEEPA.
The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public Aug. 29, sustained the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce permissibly found that no benefit was conferred through India's Advance Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system. Commerce countervails the withheld import duties under this scheme unless the foreign government has an "effective, systemic process for verifying the use of such exempted inputs or has carried out an examination of actual inputs to verify their use." The judge said the record supports the agency's finding that the Indian government "conducted an examination of the actual inputs involved" in respondent Balkrishna Industries' production of subject tires to "confirm which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what quantities."
The petitioner and a pair of respondents traded briefs at the Court of International Trade regarding various elements of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00025).
Importer Eteros Technologies and its CEO, Aaron McKellar, said the company will add more of its employees to its case against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and McKellar for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint in the suit came after the federal district court in Washington state largely kept the company's case alive (see 2508080055) (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
The Court of International Trade sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on pasta from Italy in a confidential decision issued on Aug. 27. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Sept. 3 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was brought by exporter Pastificio Gentile to contest the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the company. Pastificio argued that the agency's use of excessive AFA rates violates the Eighth Amendment's bar against excessive fines (see 2502100048) (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. United States, CIT # 24-00037).
Importer HyAxiom prevailed in the Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 in its case regarding the classification of its PC50 supermodules. CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu held that the products are water gas generators, not electric generators or multifunctional machines.
Importer Cozy Comfort filed its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 25, arguing that the Court of International Trade was wrong to find that the company's product, The Comfy, is a pullover and not a blanket (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Canadian Solar International on Aug. 25 dropped its case on the International Trade Commission's final affirmative injury determination on solar cells from Thailand. Canadian Solar is continuing to litigate its cases against the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (see 2508250043). Counsel for Canadian Solar didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why the company decided to drop the case on the injury proceeding (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 25-00168).
CBP improperly classified certain toy lips as candy under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 17 instead of "other toys" under Chapter 95, said importer Imaginings, doing business as Flix Candy, in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. Flix said that while the lips consist of two components, the plastic lips and a candy lollipop, the lips give the item its "essential character" and thus qualify the goods for Chapter 95 classification (Imaginings 3, d/b/a Flix Candy v. United States, CIT # 21-00403).