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 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):
Pea protein exporters and an importer said May 27 the International Trade Commission is wrongly attempting to create a new legal standard for determining the existence of critical circumstances (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
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.
Following decisions from the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, questions remain about which court has the right view on whether the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases on IEEPA tariffs. Relatedly, the issue affects where importers may file suit to contest the imposition of IEEPA tariffs or seek refunds of duties paid under tariff action found to be unlawful.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register May 30 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):
Suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty cash deposit requirements took effect May 29 for imports of paper file folders from Sri Lanka (A-542-806), after the Commerce Department found dumping in the preliminary determination of its ongoing AD investigation.