A group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor urged the District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 22 to toss a case against them filed by the Mexican government alleging that they fueled violence in Mexico through firearms sales practices that are illegal. Characterizing the suit as a "clash of national values," the gun manufacturers argued that the Mexican government's case represents a threat to America's constitutional freedoms and should be dismissed for myriad reasons -- chief among them the fact that Mexico does not have standing to sue these companies (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

Goods coming from a non-market economy may be denied first sale valuation due to the market-distorting policies of the non-market economy, the Department of Justice said in a Nov. 19 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing the appellate court should uphold a Court of International Trade ruling questioning the use of first sale on goods from NMEs, DOJ pushed back against plaintiff Meyer Corp.'s contention that NME policies cannot be included in "any non-market influences" -- any of which the U.S. can use to deny an importer the use of first sale. Notably, DOJ did not whole-heartedly embrace the notion that goods coming from an NME are immediately disqualified from receiving first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation, U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

That an antidumping review respondent lied in its advertisements about what its goods were made of does not warrant the application of adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 18 decision. Judge Miller Baker said that while the respondent's advertising in the U.S. is a "complete fraud from bark to core," the Commerce Department must derive the company's dumping rate from its actual costs. The judge also held that Commerce does not have the jurisdiction to "police false advertising violations" under its antidumping laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling which tossed a case seeking payment from the U.S. over damages caused from a ship delay in Delaware, holding that the district court could in fact hear the case. The appellate court, in a Nov. 16 decision, said that the court had jurisdiction since the contract between the U.S. and ship owner Nederland Shipping Corporation was a maritime contract and the law giving the U.S. cover for detaining the ship waived sovereign immunity (Nederland Shipping Corporation, et al. v. United States, 3rd Cir. #20-2269).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. may hear an appeal of the key Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States decision, seeing it as an opportunity to discuss the question of the extent to which Congress delegated tariff powers to the president, Julie Mendoza of Morris Manning, counsel to plaintiff-appellee Borusan Mannesmann, told Trade Law Daily. Having recently petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, Mendoza said that having the case sit in front of the nation's highest court will also give her and her team a chance to argue that the most recent decision in the case runs afoul of the intelligible principle standard for delegation of powers to the president as it relates to Section 232.

The Court of International Trade again struck down the Trump administration's withdrawal of an exclusion from the Section 201 solar safeguard measures for bifacial solar panels, in its second opinion rejecting Trump administration's elimination of the exclusion as many days. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion withdrawal was an "arbitrary and capricious agency decision" and represented a move with no statutory authority. Just a day earlier, Katzmann ruled against a presidential proclamation attempting to withdraw the bifacial panel exclusion, which came as a direct response to the CIT's preliminary injunction in the case over the USTR's move.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The 1974 Trade Act “does not authorize” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the “original” Section 301 lists 1 and 2 tariffs on Chinese goods under the “circumstances present” in the lists 3 and 4A duties, argued Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in their final written brief Nov. 15 at the Court of International Trade before the litigation moves to oral argument Feb. 1, 2022. HMTX and Jasco, plus the thousands of complaints their September 2020 lawsuit sparked, seek to get the lists 3 and 4A tariffs thrown out and the paid duties refunded with interest.

President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.

Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).