The Commerce Department is asking for public comments on how it can identify "masked" dumping in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Marmen v. U.S., which rejected the agency's use of the Cohen's d test. Commerce's International Trade Administration said parties should submit comments by May 30 regarding "alternatives to the use of the Cohen’s d test to define when prices differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and time periods."
The State of California and its governor, Gavin Newsom, filed an amici curiae brief on May 15 in a lawsuit brought by 12 U.S. states against all tariff action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In it, the state made a bevy of statutory arguments against the government's interpretation of IEEPA, all of which are included in the state's own lawsuit against the IEEPA tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
The Commerce Department properly found that exporters Canadian Solar and Trina Solar circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand, the Court of International Trade held on May 16. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained Commerce's decision to put special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment into the companies' Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant."
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision finding that CBP isn't entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never actually travel to the U.S. (see 2503180018). The trade court sided with Southwest Airlines in the spat, finding that the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 58c(a), doesn't allow CBP to collect the fees where the customer doesn't travel to the U.S. and no customs inspection services are performed. The court also said CBP's guidance letters requiring airlines to pay the fees, when collected by the passenger but the passenger doesn't fly, can't usurp the agency's lack of an interest in the fees, according to the statute (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).
The Court of International Trade on May 14 granted the government's bid for a voluntary remand in exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider Jiaxing Hoshine's original petition to revoke or modify the WRO and allow the exporter to submit additional evidence to the record (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pushed forward, in a text-ony order, its hearing on whether to transfer the state of California's case against all tariff action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The hearing will now take place on May 27 at 1:30 p.m. EST (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade assigned the third major challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the same three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif. The case at issue, brought on behalf of 11 importers by libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation, was brought to challenge President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed on China for the fentanyl emergency (see 2504250038). The suit will now be heard by the same three judges hearing lawsuits against the IEEPA tariffs brought by another libertarian group and 12 U.S. states (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
The U.S. opened a civil suit against importers Aspects Furniture Manufacturing and Aspects Furniture International seeking nearly $7.7 million in unpaid antidumping duties on 99 entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China. The complaint also named Hospitality Engineering Services and the chief executive of all three companies, Amy Sivixay, as defendants, claiming that Hospitality and Sivixay are liable for the unpaid duties, since they controlled the actions of the two importers (United States v. Aspects Furniture Manufacturing, CIT # 25-00089).
A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.