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).

The International Trade Commission failed to include processors of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in the U.S. industry in an injury proceeding on imports of the product from China and India, importer Nufarm Americas argued in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nufarm added that the ITC largely ignored the fact that petitioner Corteva Agriscience "withdrew from the U.S. merchant market for 2,4-D acid and esters" to focus on making its patented downstream non-subject 2,4-D end use products" (Nufarm Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00133).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 22 dismissed a lawsuit from eight Malian citizens against seven U.S. cocoa importers, which was filed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), for lack of standing. Judges Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett and Justin Walker held that the Malian citizens, who attempted to certify a class, failed to clearly allege facts showing the "causal connection between" the importers' "alleged supply chain venture" and the laborers' forced child labor (Issouf Coubaly v. Cargill, D.C. Cir. # 22-7104).

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 adequately supported its de facto specificity finding regarding Indian state-run coal supplier Coal India's provision of coal to respondent Hindalco Inndustries for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a July 22 decision. In the ruling, Judge Joseph Laroski also upheld Commerce's decision to use U.N. Comtrade data as a benchmark for calculating the size of the coal subsidy in the 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India.

Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company on July 22 asked the Court of International Trade to either temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoin the federal government from "imposing and enforcing" President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Filing a combined application for a temporary restraining order and motions for a preliminary or permanent injunction, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage said the tariff isn't a proper exercise of either Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, CIT # 25-00155).