The Court of International Trade's recent "dictum" on whether the Tariff Act of 1930 lets the Commerce Department impose antidumping duties and countervailing duties on an upstream product that's incorporated into a downstream product imported into the U.S. isn't relevant for adjudication of a pair of separate AD/CVD scope cases, the U.S. said (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10 denied exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of its antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon. Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen denied the request (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The U.S. opposed exporter Camel Group's motion to unredact part of the record in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 10 that disclosure of information deemed confidential "would substantially harm the Government's" law enforcement efforts in applying the UFLPA. The government told the Court of International Trade it has a "strong interest in protecting the law enforcement sensitive information," while Camel has "no compelling argument as to why disclosure to the public, or to Camel, as opposed to confidential disclosure, is necessary" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
The Commerce Department showed its work in finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods is independent of the Vietnamese government and thus eligible for a separate rate under an antidumping duty order on Vietnamese catfish in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order, the Court of International Trade held on July 10. Judge M. Miller Baker also held that Commerce properly assigned exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company an AD rate taken from a simple average of respondent NTSF Seafood's zero percent rate and East Sea's adverse facts available rate.
The Commerce Department failed to correct for respondent Dongkuk S&C's conversion costs and improperly relied on Dongkuk's information from a past antidumping duty review as the basis for constructed value ratios, petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in a July 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner brought the suit to contest the 2022-23 review of the AD order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00104).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to rescind the 2019 reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China with regard to exporter Kingtom Aluminio following CBP's decision to reverse its finding that Kingtom evaded the orders.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief last week in support of its motion to dismiss the case, the government argued that Eteros' case doesn't challenge the "administration and enforcement" of an import transaction" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
CBP properly found that importers American Pacific Plywood, InterGlobal Forest and U.S. Global Forest evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China via Cambodian producer LB Wood, the Court of International Trade held on July 9. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the evasion determination over a host of legal, procedural and factual claims made by InterGlobal.
The Court of International Trade on July 8 dismissed importer PPG Industries' case against the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on epoxy resins from China, India, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, for lack of prosecution. No complaint was filed within the statutorily prescribed period. Counsel for PPG didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (PPG Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00101).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set the oral argument date regarding two appeals against the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for Sept. 17. The 9th Circuit will be the second circuit court to hear arguments on the validity of the tariffs following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 (see 2506100076) (State of California v. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).