International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.
President Donald Trump said that the administration will petition the Supreme Court on Sept. 3 to make an "expedited ruling" on the legality of tariffs he imposed on every country through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Although CBP has provided guidance on how to file entries for steel and aluminum derivatives under the Section 232 tariffs, some trade community members are still unclear about how to determine the value of the steel or aluminum content in more complex situations, according to trade attorney George Tuttle, speaking on an Aug. 27 webinar.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).
While many attorneys believe that one of the cases on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs is on a collision course with the Supreme Court, questions remain about exactly when the high court will review the case and in what form. One possibility would see the lead appeal, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which currently sits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, head to the Supreme Court's emergency, or "shadow," docket.
The EU announced Aug. 28 that it had proposed a return to duty-free treatment for American lobster exports, and added processed lobster to that category, and to eliminate tariffs on American industrial goods and to provide preferential access for other U.S. seafood and what the EU called "non-sensitive agricultural goods."
CBP is ready to process the low-value packages that used to qualify for de minimis, officials said Aug. 28, hours before the change comes into effect.
CBP's CTPAT program has published an alert outlining how the trade community can be vigilant against illegal transshipping. Although the document is dated July 16, it was posted just last week on CBP's website.
A law professor from Georgetown University and a former Biden administration official have differing outlooks on the future of the lawsuits on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed in courts. Professor Marty Lederman said he would be "very surprised" if the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court ruled against the government on non-delegation or major questions doctrine grounds. Lawyer and former federal official Peter Harrell, however, said that the courts may welcome an opportunity to curb executive power.