Importer Amoena argued May 9 again that their mastectomy brassieres should have been classified as medical accessories, not “other” brassieres, saying that “a straightforward ‘visual review’” of the products wasn’t enough on its own to classify them. It also asked the trade court to accept certain apparently unaddressed facts on the record (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

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.

The Court of International Trade on May 13 heard arguments in the lead case on the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif pressed counsel for the plaintiffs, the Liberty Justice Center's Jeffrey Schwab, and DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton on whether the court can review whether a declared emergency is "unusual and extraordinary," as well as the applicability of Yoshida International v. U.S., a key precedential decision on the issue, and whether the major questions doctrine applies and controls the case (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

In seeking transfer of an International Emergency Economic Powers Act case to the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said May 8 that such a transfer is necessary even when “there is doubt” about CIT’s jurisdiction. If a case’s merits must be decided first, this would “effectively” destroy CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over tariff matters, it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The U.S. opposed importer Inspired Ventures' bid for court-annexed mediation in the company's case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. The government said the dispute between Inspired and the U.S. is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

The Commerce Department decided on remand to replace existing Brazilian surrogate value information to value respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. with data from Malaysia. Submitting its third remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 9, Commerce dropped the respondent's AD rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from 16.17% to 14.35% (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00190).

Food storage importer Huhtamaki brought a May 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade saying CBP wrongly applied Section 301 duties to its clamshell container imports. Prior to entry, the importer said, it had undertaken “a months-long wild-goose chase” with CBP that ended with verbal confirmation the imports were excluded (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00050).

The Institute for Policy Integrity, an economic law think tank housed at the NYU School of Law, filed an amicus brief in the lead case at the Court of International Trade on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to discuss the "major questions" doctrine. The institute said the plaintiffs filing the case, represented by conservative legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, "do not fully state the doctrine or properly explain why it is triggered here" (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).

Domestic producers led by U.S. Steel said that importer Tenaris Bay City’s appeal of a Commerce Department industry support finding to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit repeated flawed, sometimes waived arguments (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 8 permitted the U.S. to file an additional reply brief in support of its motion to transfer a case challenging certain tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Kent Wetherell gave the government until May 19 to file its reply addressing the plaintiffs' "merits arguments" (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).