The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 11-17, Aug. 18-24, Aug. 25-31 and Sept. 1-7:
The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and to do so on an expedited basis. The court set a briefing schedule that would conclude by Oct. 30 and set argument for the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies' case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani said the company failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one.
Plaintiffs in the primary case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act told the Supreme Court on Sept. 5 that they consent to the high court's review of the case. Responding to the government's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against many of the tariffs, the plaintiffs, consisting of five importers, said Supreme Court review is "essential," and the court's "final word is needed urgently" in light of the harm wrought by the tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
The U.S. on Sept. 3 asked the Supreme Court to review the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, concurrently moving the court for expedited consideration of its petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition be granted, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked that the court expedite the briefing schedule as well, which would conclude with oral argument held the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250).
Surety company U.S. Specialty Insurance Company argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to use transaction value to value importer Cheer Rise's garment entries. Instead, the agency arbitrarily decided to use the "fall back method" of appraisal, "rendering the appraisement unlawful," the complaint said (U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00188).
DOJ launched a cross-agency "Trade Fraud Task Force" on Aug. 29 to "bring robust enforcement against importers and other parties who seek to defraud the United States," the agency announced. The task force will bring together attorneys from the agency's civil and criminal divisions, along with officials at CBP, to target tariff evasion and "smugglers who seek to import prohibited goods into the American economy."
The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.
A New York man was sentenced Aug. 27 to six months in prison for "smuggling Egyptian antiquities" into the U.S., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York announced. The defendant, Ashraf Omar Eldarir, pleaded guilty earlier this year to four counts of smuggling goods through John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).