The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 3 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted on CBP's website May 30, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADCVD Search page.
The U.S. and Detroit Axle, an importer challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products, sparred at the Court of International Trade on whether to stay the company's case in light of the trade court's decision to vacate all tariff executive orders issued by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
A federal court halted enforcement of a Florida social media law that would prohibit kids 13 and younger from creating social media accounts, requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create them and uses age-verification to implement these restrictions. The ruling by the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida on Tuesday granted a request for a preliminary injunction brought by NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), who say HB-3 violates the First Amendment and poses privacy risks.
The District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority and declaring that all tariff action taken under IEEPA is illegal. Judge Rudolph Contreras suspended his preliminary injunction on the collection of the tariffs from the plaintiffs, two small importers, as well as the "accompanying memorandum opinion," which said IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs. The ruling is stayed pending the government's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security."
The District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority and declaring that all tariff action taken under IEEPA is illegal. Judge Rudolph Contreras suspended his preliminary injunction on the collection of the tariffs from the plaintiffs, two small importers, as well as the "accompanying memorandum opinion," which said IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs. The ruling is stayed pending the government's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security."
The U.S. on June 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the D.C. district court's decision last week finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority (see 2505290037). The government said that while the district court's preliminary injunction only extends to the plaintiffs, two small importers, the ruling undermines the president's ability to negotiate trade deals and wield broader diplomatic power (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The International Trade Commission published notices in the June 2 Federal Register on the following antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 2 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register June 2 on the following antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CVD rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):