The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions on June 25 called for future litigation to clarify whether the Commerce Department's interpretation of the "subassemblies" provision in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China comports with AD/CVD law.

The two importers challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the District Court for the District of Columbia directly petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. The importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, represented by Akin Gump, said the question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs "will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve definitively." The companies said they can't wait for the normal appellate process to wrap up, even on an expedited basis, given the "tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims." The importers are only asking the high court to review whether IEEPA provides for tariffs and not any of its other challenges to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariff action, noting that it's the only claim the government says courts have the power to review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 17 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to use partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany for its failure to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Alan Lourie said that while Commerce's request for the manufacturer information placed an "unreasonable burden" on the respondent, Salzgitter didn't provide sufficient alternatives to supplying the information. The judges said "randomized sampling would have been a reasonable" alternative to the missing data.

The Court of International Trade on June 16 held that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial last year, Judge Stephen Vaden concluded that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110 as a pullover. Specifically, the item will now be classified under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%.

The Court of International Trade on June 16 held that the Commerce Department's regulations setting deadlines to file separate rate applications and certifications can't supersede the statutory requirement to pick mandatory respondents based on the volume of their exports. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce erred in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China by picking respondents based on value and not volume of U.S. sales and in declining to consider the largest exporter, Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, based on its untimely separate rate certification. The judge said Dongsheng's information was "reasonably available" to the agency, since it was filed the same time as the information from other respondents who received filing extensions.

The Court of International Trade on June 12 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the countervailing duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce complied with his remand instructions by prorating the countervailing duty set on exporter The Ancientree Cabinet to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. As a result, Commerce lowered Ancientree's CVD cash deposit rate from 13.33% to 5.06% and calculated individual CVD rates for the exporter's U.S. buyers, though the agency said the cash deposit rate has been superseded by the cash deposit rate given to Ancientree based on the 2022 review of the CVD order.

The Court of International Trade on June 11 said CBP waited too long to demand payment on unpaid antidumping duties from surety company Aegis Security Insurance. Judge Jane Restani held both that CBP violated the implied condition of reasonableness in customs bonds in waiting eight years to demand payment and that the agency violated the six-year statute of limitations in which the government can demand payment. Restani became the third CIT judge to rule on the issue of whether CBP can demand payment from surety companies years after the underlying entry was liquidated, siding with one of her colleagues in finding that the statute of limitations runs from the date of liquidation and not the date CBP demands payment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 stayed the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction on all of President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the appeal of the case. In a per curium order, all CAFC judges in regular active service said "a stay is warranted under the circumstances." In addition, the court said all active judges will hear the case, as opposed to the court's traditional three-judge panel approach, in light of the "issues of exceptional importance" presented by the matter.

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 from the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicles and light truck tires from Taiwan. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce improperly added a requirement that subject tires be for "regular use" in a vehicle, noting that the agency's interpretation doesn't appear in the "statutory language" and is undercut by the "terms of the Order itself." The judge said there's evidence showing Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fit passenger cars," which falls under the plain meaning of the order's scope.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 sent back the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of Italian pasta, finding that the agency improperly prioritized "transparency" and "consistency" over the physical differences between pasta sold in the U.S. and Italy. Given that protein content was used to distinguish premium and standard pasta for U.S. and like product comparison purposes, Judges Alan Lourie, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll faulted Commerce for failing to account for FDA rounding requirements for the protein content listed on the label of U.S.-sold pasta and the "different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors used in calculating protein content in the United States versus Italy." However, the court said exporter La Molisana didn't provide sufficient evidence to challenge Commerce's use of a 12.5% protein content breakpoint in distinguishing between standard and premium pasta.