The District Court for the District of Montana on April 25 transferred a case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge Dana Christensen rested the decision on two prior cases that found challenges to tariff action taken under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, to belong in the U.S. Customs Court, the trade court's predecessor. While the plaintiffs said IEEPA has more restricted authority than TWEA, the judge said IEEPA has the "same operative language" as TWEA. The court said the plaintiffs failed to show how the "limits placed on the IEEPA’s grant of authority affect" CIT's jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, have already filed a notice of appeal, declaring that they will take the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Court of International Trade on April 23 denied exporter Kumar Industries' challenge to the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China, India and Japan. Judge Gary Katzmann said the Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against Kumar for its failure to respond to the best of its ability in establishing that it's not affiliated with two unnamed companies. The judge also sustained Commerce's decision to deduct antidumping and countervailing duties from Kumar's U.S. price for only three transactions, given evidence showing that Kumar didn't include AD/CVD for these sales.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 23 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect targeted dumping in the second decision on the issue in as many days. The court said it's bound by yesterday's decision rejecting the test for not adhering to basic statistical assumptions. Writing individually, Judge Leonard Stark suggested he may have been compelled to reach a different position on the use of the test as "one step" in Commerce's "three-step differential pricing analysis" if it weren't for the court's recent decision.

Twelve U.S. states, led by Oregon, filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's ability to impose tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The complaint contests all of Trump's tariff orders issued under IEEPA as a violation of both the statutory authority conveyed by IEEPA and the Constitution's principle of separation of powers. The suit, filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, also challenges CBP's series of Cargo Systems Messaging Service notices implementing the tariffs under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public April 22 said Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. has constitutional and statutory standing to challenge CBP's issuance of and refusal to modify a withhold release order on its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, and its subsidiaries. However, Judge Claire Kelly dismissed Jiaxing Hoshine's challenge to the issuance of the WRO for untimeliness, since it was brought after the statute of limitations had run.

The Court of International Trade denied a motion from five importers to put an emergency block on President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, in an order issued late on April 22. CIT Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif ruled the five importers haven’t shown that “immediate and irreparable harm” would result from not issuing a temporary restraining order while the court considers the importers’ request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on April 22 granted a motion to dismiss importer Pay Less’ challenge to the International Trade Commission’s affirmative critical circumstances finding regarding Burmese-origin mattresses. The importer never filed an entry of appearance in the underlying injury investigation, and it overall failed to clear the “low bar” required to establish itself as a party to the proceeding, he ruled (Pay Less Here v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 24-00152).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 22 held that the Commerce Department may not use the Cohen's d test to detect targeted dumping where the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said it's "unreasonable" for Commerce to use the d test on data sets that don't satisfy the statistical assumptions, adding that the agency's argument that the assumptions need not apply when using the test on the entire population of data as opposed to just samples "strains credulity." Remanding the antidumping duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Canada, the Federal Circuit also sent back Commerce's rejection of respondent Marmen's supplemental cost-reconciliation item meant to correct certain purchase information that hadn't been properly converted from U.S. dollars to Canadian dollars. However, the court sustained Commerce's decision to weight-average Marmen's reported steel plate costs.

The Court of International Trade on April 21 remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that found a paint sprayer nozzle importer’s products weren’t heat sinks and thus weren't exempt from antidumping duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The department “added a new requirement” to the five-factor test identifying heat sinks, saying that an import can't be dual-purpose, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 21 held to a strict interpretation of the principle of finality of liquidation, ruling that the Court of International Trade can't consider equitable reasons for ordering reliquidation of finally liquidated entries. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said the trade court can't order reliquidation beyond the statutory exceptions, which specifically refer to filing a protest with CBP or a civil action at the trade court. Judge Jimmie Reyna dissented from the ruling, arguing that the majority misapprehends CBP's protest procedures and improperly limits "CIT’s authority to enforce its judgments to a level that is inferior" to the full authority of an Article III court.