In a decision made public June 6, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese solar cells so the department could rework its valuation of an input, solar glass, and its adverse facts available calculation.

The Court of International Trade on June 5 sent back the Commerce Department's new shipper review of exporter Co May under the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam after the petitioner, the Catfish Farmers of America, challenged whether Co May's single U.S. sale was bona fide. Judge Jane Restani sent the review back so Commerce can address its "profitability analysis," and specifically, so the agency can look at "antidumping duty expenses and sales between likely affiliated parties."

The Court of International Trade on June 9 sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling excluding exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use spare tires (T-type tires) from the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce improperly added a requirement in the order's scope that the tires be of "regular use," since this term doesn't appear in the "statutory language" and is "belied by the terms of the Order itself."

The Commerce Department failed to follow the "procedural prerequisites" for changing its position on remand when using adverse facts available against exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held on June 5. Remanding the review for a third time, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce ran "afoul of the most basic of administrative law requirements" when it "falsely claimed to keep its rationale the same" for applying AFA "while quietly changing its position."

The Court of International Trade denied the U.S. motion to stay proceedings in a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products. Detroit Axle, the importer challenging the government, then filed an emergency motion requesting the dates ordered by CIT be moved earlier to "preserve Detroit Axle’s ability to obtain meaningful relief" (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The importers challenging the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the importers will be irreparably harmed by the stay while the president "is not harmed by the denial of authority he does not legally possess" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

Chinese exporter Yingli Energy on June 3 supported its argument that the Court of International Trade should strike down the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under government control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).

Akin Gump attorneys, representing two small importers, filed an unopposed motion to expedite consideration of the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the validity of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The importers' proposed schedule for the case would conclude briefing on Aug. 8 and see the appellate court hold oral argument either during a "special summer sitting" or on the first date in the court's September sitting (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The State of California appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's decision to dismiss its case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, filing on June 4 a motion to expedite the appeal. California's proposed schedule would see briefing conclude on Aug. 18, with California's opening brief due on June 30 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 said the Commerce Department improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review.