A domestic producer recently filed a petition with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission requesting new antidumping duties and countervailing duties on L-lysine from China. Commerce now will decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CVD orders and the assessment of AD and CVD on importers. The Lysine Fair Trade Coalition requested the investigation.
The Commerce Department, after suggesting that the import of semiconductors, products containing semiconductors, and equipment and inputs used to make chips could be making the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, is now hearing from dozens of stakeholders who say the administration has it completely backwards. Time after time, in more than 150 submitted comments for the Section 232 investigation, stakeholders said imposing tariffs is what would lead to shortages, manufacturing woes, and a loss of competitiveness in the design and manufacture of chips.
One of the lawyers representing five importers suing President Donald Trump over his emergency tariffs said that the president's approach to tariffs, constantly threatening various new rates, sometimes backing off, and sometimes not, isn't just a "menace to the economy," it also "is totally at odds with the rule of law."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 27 heard arguments concerning the government's motion to transfer a case challenging International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs to the Court of International Trade and two importers' bid for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs. Judge Rudolph Contreras asked the government about what remedy the court could impose should it find for the plaintiffs and about the merits of the importers' claim that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, D. D.C. # 25-01248).
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
More than 40 companies and trade groups, from businesses with 26 employees to one with 32,000, are asking that 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum be applied to hundreds of "derivative" products made by foreign competitors.
The Commerce Department issued notices in the Federal Register on its recently initiated antidumping duty investigations on silicon metal from Angola (A-762-001), Australia (A-602-813), Laos (A-553-001) and Norway (A-403-806), as well as its countervailing duty investigations on silicon metal from Australia (C-602-814), Laos (C-553-002), Norway (C-403-807) and Thailand (C-549-856). The CVD investigations cover entries for calendar year 2024. The AD investigations cover entries April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 12-18:
In a scope ruling released May 7, the Commerce Department said that certain temporary use spare tires imported from China by Logistical Resource Development aren’t subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires. It has reached similar decisions regarding temporary use tires from Taiwan and Thailand (see 2403120022) and 2401250038).