Exporters brought a number complaints Aug. 22 and Aug. 25 challenging the Commerce Department’s decision to countervail transnational subsidies in its investigations on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Boviet Solar Technology v. United States, CIT #s 25-00160 and 25-00162; JA Solar Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00157 and 25-00158; Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, CIT # 25-00166 and 25-00169; Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT #s 25-00159 and 25-00161; Jinko Solar (Vietnam) Industries Company v. United States, CIT #s 25-00171 and 25-00172).

The Court of International Trade sustained Aug. 22 the Commerce Department’s finding that a Vietnamese currency undervaluation program was specific to the traded goods sector, and thus countervailable in a countervailing duty investigation on passenger vehicle and light truck tires. The court said Commerce’s analysis was properly based on predominant use, distinguishing it from a disproportionality analysis.

In a confidential opinion released Aug. 22, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department’s pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia -- in place until June 6, 2024 -- after a finding that the countries' exporters were circumventing an antidumping duty on solar cells from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

In a reply brief, California said Aug. 18 that the U.S. had conceded the state’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs “arises out of” the IEEPA. The government’s following argument, that it also arises from Trump’s recent executive orders modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to implement the tariffs, fails because those orders weren’t authorized by a “law of the United States,” it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).

The Court of International Trade dismissed Aug. 21 a case brought by Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving in an attempt to secure a lower antidumping duty cash deposit rate for some of its entries.

Over opposition from the government, which said that the Court of International Trade didn't have the power to extend complaint deadlines, the trade court let honey exporters led by Ban Me Thout Honeybee file their complaint out of time in an order Aug. 15. The court said it would follow up its order with its reasoning in a later filing.

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 Court of International Trade affirmed Aug. 11 the Commerce Department’s decision to, in an antidumping duty administrative review, reject Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli China’s separate rate application even though its U.S. sales were conducted through an affiliate, Yingli Green Energy Americas, with separate ownership.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to reject an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire that had already been rescinded.

Importers' argument that the tariffs imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act don't arise out of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. "strains the statutory text past the breaking point," the government 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).