The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.
DOJ has increasingly relied on an undervaluation theory for trade enforcement cases brought under the False Claims Act in its increased attempt to police trade fraud and may be looking to include "corporate integrity agreements" as part of trade-related FCA settlements, attorneys at Faegre Drinker said during a Nov. 13 webinar that focused on increased trade enforcement.
Eight more cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following oral argument at the Supreme Court in the lead cases on the issue, during which many of the justices expressed skepticism over the validity of such tariffs.
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.
Should the Supreme Court rule that the tariffs administered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are not valid, importers of record, who could potentially receive duty refunds, may also end up in legal battles with others who shared in the importer's tariff burden, founding member and principal of Sandler and Travis said during Flexport's Nov. 12 webinar on tariff trends.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2 and Nov. 3-9:
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A group of seven importers, led by Innovative Eyewear, is the filer of another lawsuit challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on the issue in which many of the justices appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. The lawsuit is the fourth of its kind to be filed at the Court of International Trade in the wake of the oral argument as importers go to court to ensure they have access to refunds should the high court strike down President Donald Trump's reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs (see 2511060015) (Innovative Eyewear v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00247).
Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett stayed Oct. 31 a case brought by Aloha Pencil Company opposing the recission of an antidumping duty review on cased pencils from China. He said he wants a joint status report from Aloha and the government regarding whether the trade court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).
The Commerce Department unlawfully used "zeroing" in calculating respondent YDD Corporation's antidumping margin in the AD investigation on ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan, YDD argued in a Nov. 7 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The respondent said Commerce has a "long-established practice of not using zeroing," yet the agency "departed from this practice" when calculating the company's AD rate "without providing any explanation for this change in practice" (YDD Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00100).