Four importers recently dismissed their cases at the Court of International Trade regarding President Donald Trump's decision from his first administration to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The importers are Shining Solutions, Light & Hope Energy, JinkoSolar (U.S.) and Longi Solar Technology (U.S.) (Shining Solutions v. U.S., CIT # 22-00301) (Light & Hope Energy v. U.S., CIT # 22-00303) (JinkoSolar (U.S.) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00241) (Longi Solar Technology (U.S.) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00212).
The Commerce Department properly relied on Maersk data as the surrogate value for ocean freight and found that certain fabricated steel components used by respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery shouldn't be valued using data under Harmonized System subheadings covering "primary or raw steel products," petitioner Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment argued. Submitting remand comments to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 11, the coalition urged the court to accept the agency's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00152).
Exporters Maquilacero and Tecnicas de Fluidos on Aug. 13 opened a five-count case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. The companies challenged the Commerce Department's findings that products made by Tecnicas from light-walled rectangular tubing are within the scope of the order and the agency's decision to collapse Maquilacero and Tecnicas (Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).
The International Trade Commission urges an approach to the redaction of business proprietary information that "the law forbids," Alex Moss, executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, said in an Aug. 13 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on the commission's redaction policy. Moss said the ITC unlawfully asks the court to "redact judicial records at its request without requiring any justification" (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).
Exporters Fine Furniture (Shanghai) and Double F Limited supported the Commerce Department's remand results in their case against the 2018 countervailing duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
Exporters led by International Greenhouse Produce and Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida on Aug. 13 dropped their lawsuits involving a 2019 agreement suspending the antidumping duty order on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The exporters dropped their cases following the Commerce Department's announcement in April that it withdrew from the agreement (see 2504150057) (International Greenhouse Produce v. U.S., CIT # 23-00093) (Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida v. U.S., CIT # 20-00042).
Gary Barnes, the pro se litigant challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs, responded on Aug. 11 to the government's opposition to his motion for reconsideration of the Court of International Trade's decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Barnes argued that his amendment to his original complaint helps establish that he has suffered a direct injury from the tariffs (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
CBP improperly interpreted the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from China when it found that 10 importers evaded the orders, importer LE Commodities argued in an Aug. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the evasion proceeding, CBP said that the China-origin hollow steel billets used by Thai manufacturer Petroleum Equipment (Thailand) Co. to make the subject OCTG were "unfinished OCTG" subject to the orders (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 25-00181).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will likely rule against the Trump administration in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though it's unclear under what exact rationale the court will do so, said Peter Harrell, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration.
The U.S. agreed to liquidate GoPro's action camera housings under the company's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings, 8529.90.86 or 8529.90.87, which come free of duty. Settling five customs cases brought by GoPro, the U.S. said it will reliquidate the entries under the two subheadings, which provide for parts "suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus” of HTS heading 8525, and refund any duties paid. The settlements come after a December 2023 CIT decision finding that GoPro's camera housings are camera parts and not cases of subheading 4202.99.9000, dutiable at 20% (see 2312280038) (GoPro v. United States, CIT #'s 20-00085, -00095; 21-00058; 23-00015; 24-00005).