The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "it would be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to hear and decide this case before the Supreme Court has resolved the proceedings before it," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."
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 Commerce Department lacked authority under its regulations to rescind the administrative reviews of two Chinese wood moulding exporters "solely due to a lack of suspended entries," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 5. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's regulation, 19 C.F.R. Section 351.213(d)(3), only allows for rescission if there were no entries of the subject merchandise, adding that the regulation doesn't "include or imply a requirement that these entries be suspended."
The Supreme Court may be willing to adopt certain arguments made by the dissenting judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, various attorneys told us. Specifically, certain justices may be willing to adopt Judge Richard Taranto's discussion of the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine, though others were more skeptical about how much tariff authority the court is willing to cede to the president under IEEPA and these two doctrines.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).
The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.
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).
Veronica Dragalin, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California and former chief prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Prosecution Office for Moldova, has joined Jones Day's investigations and white collar defense practice, the firm announced. Dragalin has worked on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters, among other white collar issues.
The U.S. and importer Crown Cork & Seal settled a customs penalty case against the importer, filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 2. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053), and the case unsuccessfully went through court-led mediation (see 2305300066). The terms of the settlement are unknown (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).
Importer Eteros Technologies and its CEO, Aaron McKellar, filed an amended complaint in a court in Washington state in their case against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and its executive for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The complaint added two more executives, Amanda James, director of strategy and business development at Eteros Canada and Eteros USA, and Ryan Bjergso, a senior executive at Eteros USA, alleging that both also suffered "adverse" immigration consequences due to CBP's retaliatory actions (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).