The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' lawsuit challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs for lack of standing. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that Barnes, who alleged harm as a retiree on a fixed income concerned about higher prices and unconstitutional action, failed to allege harm that is "particularized" or "actual or imminent." The judge also affirmed the trade court's exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and related cases challenging trade action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Court of International Trade on May 21 remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce unlawfully failed to respond to an objection from the petitioner, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, that one of respondent Assan Aluminyum's submissions to the agency on remand contained new information that didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal regarding Assan's duty drawback adjustment. Katzmann also held that Commerce unlawfully failed to respond to the petitioner's objection to the agency's reliance on "unverified information" in two of Assan's submissions on remand.

The District Court for Northern Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell said Yoshida International v. U.S. controls the question of whether IEEPA allows for the imposition of tariffs. In that case, an appellate court said the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor, includes the power to impose tariffs, since the power to "regulate" necessarily includes the power to impose duties. Wetherell said he sees "no reason why" the Yoshida court's reasoning "would not apply to IEEPA because the operative language of IEEPA is identical to the operative language in TWEA." However, the judge said his holding shouldn't affect the merits of the case, adding that it will be up to the trade court to determine what effect the "jurisdictional determination that IEEPA" provides for tariffs "impacts the merits of Plaintiffs' claims."

The Court of International Trade on May 19 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that solar cells from Vietnam circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "arbitrarily treated its adverse facts available finding" on one of the mandatory respondents "as the administrative equivalent of landing on 'Go to Jail'" for the unexamined companies. The agency still has to address every statutory circumvention factor and balance them, the judge said. However, Baker upheld the ability of Commerce to extend the AFA determination to the cooperating unexamined companies, since the agency did so on the basis that the uncooperating party accounted for a "significant volume of Vietnamese solar cells."

The Court of International Trade on May 16 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's circumvention determinations on solar cells made by Trina Solar Science & Technology, Canadian Solar International and BYD. On the findings that Trina and Canadian Solar circumvented the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells via Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce permissibly placed dispositive weight on the amount invested into research and development in the companies' Thailand facilities to show that the operations in these facilities were "minor or insignificant." Baker also sustained the agency's finding that BYD circumvented the orders via Cambodia, similarly upholding Commerce's reliance on the level of R&D into BYD's Cambodia facilities.

The Court of International Trade on May 15 held that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court rulings distinguishes "importation" and "entry." The judge added that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided the five-year period to make a drawback claim runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. As a result, the court dismissed importer King Maker Marketing's case challenging CBP's rejection of its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims for being untimely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 types of frozen fruit mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, which covers "other" frozen fruit. Judges Todd Hughes, Leonard Stark and Robert Schroeder, sitting by designation from a Texas court, held that nine types of mixtures that contain fruits and vegetables properly fit under heading 0811 pursuant to GRI 3(b), which considers which component of a mixture gives it its "essential character," since the mixtures' fruit gave the product its essential character. The appeals court said subheading 0811.90.80 was proper to cover all 14 mixture types, though it disagreed with the trade court that "other" means "none of the above," writing instead that it means "none of the preceding categories."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In the 2018-19 review, Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld Commerce's surrogate value pick for coal-based carbonized material, an input of activated carbon. In the 2019-20 review, the judges upheld the agency's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the surrogate value selections for carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight.

The Court of International Trade on May 8 held that CBP can't unilaterally reliquidate entries erroneously liquidated in violation of a suspension order from the court. Judge Gary Katzmann said CBP can't avoid the court's role in disturbing the finality of liquidation and ordering equitable relief. The judge went on to deny this equitable relief to the government, which inadvertently liquidated 174 entries of solar panels without applicable Section 201 safeguard duties. Katzmann declined to extend such relief to CBP on the basis that the agency inflicted the harm itself and failed to show it was adequately diligent in preventing the error.

The Court of International Trade on May 6 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India. After two remands for Commerce's decision to use a questionnaire in lieu of onsite verification, the agency conducted an in-person verification of respondent Shakti Forge Industries' facilities in India. Judge Stephen Vaden declared the procedural claims "vanquished," then sustained the agency's reliance on Shakti's reported costs. The judge noted that Commerce didn't find a "single inaccuracy" in the respondent's reporting and reasonably accepted the exporter's explanation of its finishing processes to be reasonable.