The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the importers failed to show "a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the threatened August 1, 2025 tariff" (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States, CIT # 25-00155).

The Court of International Trade's ruling that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption impermissibly repealed part of the Foreign Trade Zone Act, imported King Maker Marketing argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer added that it's "both absurd and anomalous" to impose a time limit on the recovery of duties and taxes under the drawback scheme as "beginning to run before those duties and taxes are paid" (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department permissibly used respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's Turkish lira-denominated sales to value the company's home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on July 29.

Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett pressed counsel for petitioner Edsal Manufacturing during oral argument on July 23 regarding the company's challenge to the Commerce Department's surrogate financial statement selection in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units from Thailand. Barnett also sharply questioned Edsal's counsel regarding their challenge to Commerce's use of the commercial invoice date as the date of sale for respondent Siam Metal Tech's U.S. sales and the agency's reliance on respondent Bangkok Sheet Metal's total cost of manufacture value (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s administrative review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-origin aluminum foil, saying that the department had to reconsider or explain why it refused the review’s exporters a double remedies offset. It said the relevant law requires the department to calculate a subsidy's price impact based on what the price might have been without the subsidy, not on whether prices declined during the review period.

The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold on goods from China, which was made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said they already have granted all the relief the importer is seeking, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Federal Circuit has a long line of cases upholding the policy and that, even if those cases didn't exist, Commerce didn't need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the policy.

Aluminum printing plate exporter Fujifilm Corp. said July 22 that the International Trade Commission had found its products caused domestic injury only by “finding that Fujifilm harmed itself” (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00251).

The U.S. government's "newfound" theory of jurisdiction in two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is "both convoluted and wrong," the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).