The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's finding that importer Vanguard Trading evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops, in a decision made public May 27. Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP wasn't required to make a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department under the statute, since CBP determined under its own authority that Vanguard's goods were covered products. Reif also said CBP wasn't required to stay the evasion proceeding after Vanguard filed a formal scope inquiry, noting that such a position would let an importer unilaterally achieve a "pause" in an evasion proceeding by filing a separate scope request with Commerce -- a position that is "plainly contrary" to the evasion statute's "legislative history." Reif then concluded that the evasion determination wasn't arbitrary or capricious.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 27 heard arguments concerning the government's motion to transfer a case challenging International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs to the Court of International Trade and two importers' bid for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs. Judge Rudolph Contreras asked the government about what remedy the court could impose should it find for the plaintiffs and about the merits of the importers' claim that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).

The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, all of which were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court held that the retaliatory tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs" and that the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico "fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." Judges Gary Katzmann, Jane Restani and Timothy Reif permanently enjoined the tariffs, declaring that if the tariffs are "unlawful as to Plaintiff they are unlawful as to all."

A trade group that requested antidumping and countervailing duties on glass wine bottles brought a 27-count complaint to the Court of International Trade on May 21. The petitioner challenged the International Trade Commission’s determination that bottle imports weren’t harming the domestic industry (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00076).

The U.S. filed a May 19 supplemental brief in a 2021 case involving dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand to address the case’s last “remaining contention” after the importer lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).

The Court of International Trade on May 23 assigned a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold on goods from China to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani. The court has assigned these same three judges to all cases challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.

Plaintiffs challenging tariff action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a D.C. court said a Florida court's recent decision transferring a separate IEEPA tariff case to the Court of International Trade doesn't settle the jurisdictional issue. Filing a brief on May 22, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the Florida court "came to the wrong conclusion" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."

The U.S. supported May 19 its motion to dismiss Canadian exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ challenge to the results of a Commerce Department pipe investigation (see 2503250054). The exporter has admitted it erred when it filed under the wrong jurisdictional regulation, the government said (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).