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.

The Court of International Trade on June 3 sustained the Commerce Department's negative final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on bootless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's use of financial statements from Indian producer TMTE Metal Tech to determine constructed value, rejecting claims from petitioner Edsal Manufacturing that the agency improperly accepted untimely information from respondent Triune Technofab about the public availability of the TMTE data and that the TMTE statements weren't publicly available. Barnett also rejected Edsal's claim that Commerce erroneously treated statements from Indian producer Mekins Industries as per se invalid due to the presence of countervailable subsidies.

The Commerce Department wasn't required to broaden its use of adverse facts available based on small reporting errors from the respondent, the Court of International Trade held on June 2. During verification conducted on remand in the antidumping duty investigation on Indian steel fluid end blocks, Commerce found two errors from respondent Bharat Forge: its reported content of molybdenum, a steel input, for one steel grade and its failure to report "parts" costs for two control numbers. Judge Stephen Vaden rejected the petitioners' claims that these errors indicate broader reliability concerns in Bharat's data, finding that Commerce had no need to "apply a broader adverse inference," since the errors were small.

The District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act doesn't confer tariff-setting authority and declaring that all tariff action taken under IEEPA is illegal. Judge Rudolph Contreras suspended his preliminary injunction on the collection of the tariffs from the plaintiffs, two small importers, as well as the "accompanying memorandum opinion," which said IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs. The ruling is stayed pending the government's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The judge said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security."

The District Court for Northern California on June 3 dismissed California's challenge to tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 1581(i), which says only CIT will hear cases arising out of U.S. laws providing for tariffs. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs are laws of the U.S. for purposes of Section 1581(i), since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the law implementing the HTS, Section 3004, says presidential action modifying the HTS is part of the HTS. Scott then dismissed the case instead of transferring, per California's request, to let the state appeal the decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 29 stayed the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all trade action taken by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act while the appellate court considers the government's emergency stay motion of the trade court's ruling. Yesterday, the trade court vacated all of Trump's executive orders imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. The U.S. immediately filled for a stay of the decision at CIT and the Federal Circuit, arguing that such a ruling would "hamstring" U.S. foreign policy.

The District Court for the District of Columbia struck down all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act a day after the Court of International Trade did the same. However, Judge Rudolph Contreras went farther than the trade court, holding on May 29 that IEEPA categorically doesn't include the power to impose tariffs.

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's finding that importer Vanguard Trading evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops, in a decision made public May 27. Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP wasn't required to make a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department under the statute, since CBP determined under its own authority that Vanguard's goods were covered products. Reif also said CBP wasn't required to stay the evasion proceeding after Vanguard filed a formal scope inquiry, noting that such a position would let an importer unilaterally achieve a "pause" in an evasion proceeding by filing a separate scope request with Commerce -- a position that is "plainly contrary" to the evasion statute's "legislative history." Reif then concluded that the evasion determination wasn't arbitrary or capricious.

The Court of International Trade on May 28 vacated President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, all of which were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court held that the retaliatory tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs" and that the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico "fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." Judges Gary Katzmann, Jane Restani and Timothy Reif permanently enjoined the tariffs, declaring that if the tariffs are "unlawful as to Plaintiff they are unlawful as to all."

The government has 10 days to issue orders implementing the Court of International Trade’s May 28 permanent injunction shutting down International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, as well as the 10% and country-specific IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, according to a judgment issued by the court alongside its opinion. The government has already filed an appeal of the decision.