The case concerns challenges by the State of Washington and two importers to Proclamation No. 11012, which imposed temporary import surcharges under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address international payments issues. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the proclamation invalid as contrary to law, permanently enjoining its application to the plaintiffs, and ordering refunds of duties paid. Defendants moved for a stay of that judgment pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. The court denied the stay, finding that the government had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of equities and public interest supported delaying enforcement, noting Congress's constitutional authority over tariffs.
In this case before the U.S. Court of International Trade, multiple states and private companies challenged a presidential proclamation that imposed trade measures based on findings of a serious balance-of-payments deficit under Section 122, seeking to invalidate the proclamation through summary judgment. The majority of the court granted summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the proclamation for plaintiffs with standing, specifically the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc., while dismissing claims by numerous other states due to lack of standing. The core reasoning centered on the proclamation's failure to align with statutory requirements for defining and addressing balance-of-payments deficits, rejecting the government's interpretive arguments. A dissenting judge would have denied summary judgment to allow further procedural steps under court rules rather than invalidating the proclamation outright.
The case Mosaic Co. v. United States concerned a challenge by The Mosaic Company to the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand redetermination in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco. The court sustained Commerce's finding that a subsidy program involving reductions in tax fines and penalties for OCP S.A. was not de facto specific and thus not countervailable. The core reasoning was that record evidence, including OCP's large size relative to Morocco's economy and its receipt of a small percentage of total reductions, supported Commerce's conclusion that the benefit was not disproportionately large. The court determined that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.
This case involves U.S. catfish producers challenging a 2024 decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce concluding an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce failed to respond to a Vietnamese exporter's lack of cooperation and improperly ignored alleged clerical errors in the final results. The court rejected the cooperation claim but found that Commerce erred by rejecting the ministerial error allegation as untimely and excluding it from the record. It therefore remanded the matter to Commerce to admit the allegation, determine if the errors exist, and make any necessary corrections to the duty rates.
This case concerned the proper tariff classification by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of imported PC50 supermodules, which are incomplete assemblies of components later used to build stationary hydrogen fuel cell power generators. Plaintiff HyAxiom contested the agency's reliquidation of its entry under a dutiable provision at 3% ad valorem and sought duty-free treatment. The court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, holding that the merchandise is correctly classified under HTSUS subheading 8405.10.00. The decision rested on a joint statement of undisputed facts establishing that gas generation is the principal function of the PC50 and that the imported articles possess the essential character of a gas-generating machine under General Rules of Interpretation 1 and 2(a) and the notes to section XVI of the HTSUS.
The case involved the United States government seeking to recover a civil penalty and unpaid duties from Rayson Global, Inc. and its CEO Doris Cheng for negligently importing mattress innersprings from China while falsely declaring Thailand as the country of origin, which resulted in the evasion of ordinary, antidumping, and Section 301 duties. The court granted the government's motion for default judgment after the defendants failed to respond to the second amended complaint. The decision awarded a penalty of $3,381,607.03 and ordered payment of $2,431,225.93 in lost revenue plus interest, based on the acceptance of the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint regarding the negligent violation of Section 592 of the Tariff Act.