The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), which says CIT will hear cases arising out of a "law of the United States providing for" various trade-related actions. The judge held that Eteros' allegations don't arise out of any trade-related U.S. laws. Katzmann also held that no relief is needed to effectuate the trade court's prior ruling in favor of Eteros, since no party disputes that CBP complied with CIT's "specific directive" to release Eteros' marijuana trimmers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 4 held that the Commerce Department's rejection of a questionnaire submission by countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir that was one hour and 41 minutes late was an abuse of discretion. Judges Timothy Dyk and Sharon Prost said that future courts reviewing whether Commerce "abused its discretion by rejecting a submission as untimely" shall consider the "remedial-not-punitive purpose" of antidumping and countervailing duty laws, the burden on Commerce that stems from the untimely submission, whether any finality concerns are implicated by accepting the documents and the "late-filing party's efforts" and its "reasons for the submission's untimeliness." Applying those factors, Dyk and Prost said Commerce clearly abused its discretion in deciding not to accept Tau-Ken's late submission, which led to a 160% adverse facts available rate. Judge Todd Hughes dissented from the decision, declaring that "Commerce has extensive authority to enforce its own deadlines."

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Jindal Poly's affiliate questionnaire response as untimely in the countervailing duty administrative review on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India for the 2021 review period. Judge Mark Barnett held that the rejection of the submission was an "abuse of discretion," finding that the agency failed to adequately consider various facts, including the "early stage of the proceeding," the selection of Jindal for "individual examination only after requests for review of all other subject companies" were withdrawn and whether "accuracy consideration" outweighed the "burden on the agency."

The Court of International Trade on July 31 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's scope ruling on importer School Specialty's No. 2 pencils made in the Philippines with Chinese-origin raw material inputs. Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce failed to discuss how it balanced its various findings after conducting a "substantial transformation" analysis and looking at where the pencil's "essential component" was made. However, Baker individually sustained Commerce's conclusions regarding the different factors found in these analyses.

The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the "indefiniteness of the threatened action," which Trump said will take effect on Aug. 1, "dooms" the importers' "request for emergency relief in the form of a TRO." The judge said neither Trump nor any agency "has taken final action that is subject to judicial review by this Court."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey in which the agency's decision to use Turkish lira to value respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's home-market sales. While Habas said Commerce had to follow its precedent by using the respondent's dollar-denominated sales, Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce had no such obligation, since Habas failed to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices." The judges also rejected the respondent's claim that the use of the lira-denominated prices distorted the AD margin calculation, finding that Commerce properly relied on Habas' reported lira values, which were the only reliable prices.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 upheld the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping proceedings despite the fact that Commerce had not codified the policy in its regulations at the time the policy was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said there's a long line of CAFC cases finding that Commerce can lawfully assign an NME-wide AD rate to a cooperative mandatory respondent that has failed to rebut the presumption of foreign state control. In addition, the judges said even if these cases didn't exist, the policy didn't require notice-and-comment rulemaking, since the validity of an "evidentiary presumption turns on its rationality." The judges then held that there's "a sound and rational connection between a finding that a country is an NME country and the inference that exporters in that country are subject to government control."

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 eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said Detroit Axle can't succeed in "obtaining the relief it seeks," since the trade court already granted the relief the importer seeks in the lead case on Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief pending appeal. The court then stayed the remainder of Detroit Axle's case pending resolution of the lead IEEPA tariff case.

In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly ruled that, when deciding to impose a double remedies offset in an antidumping duty review with a parallel countervailing duty review, the Commerce Department must calculate whether a countervailable subsidy would have decreased a non-market economy exporter’s prices and dumping margin, not whether the exporter’s prices actually declined during a review period. However, she sustained the department’s choice of Romania as a surrogate in AD/CVD reviews of aluminum foil from China (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

The Court of International Trade on July 22 sustained the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce's decisions to find that the provision of coal for less than adequate remuneration was de facto specific and to use U.N. Comtrade data as a benchmark in measuring the coal subsidy were supported by substantial evidence. The agency's specificity finding rested on the fact that respondent Hindalco, "like a typical utility provider, engages in 'power generation,'" and that two "power" industries "appear to use a substantial majority of the coal provided by" India's state-run coal supplier, Coal India.