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.

The 12 states challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the Trump administration's claim that it will be irreparably harmed without a stay are undermined by administration officials' own statements (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of the financial statement of TMTE Metal Tech to calculate respondent Triune Technofab's constructed value in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. The result is a negative determination in the AD investigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3 sharply questioned counsel for exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. in its case alleging that the Commerce Department doesn't have the adequate legal authority for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases, which includes a rebuttable presumption that an exporter is controlled by the NME nation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).