Counsel for four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging certain tariff action taken by President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court's recent decision in AARP v. Trump supports its interlocutory appeal of a Montana district court's decision to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The Commerce Department improperly used the financial statements of Indonesian company PT Suparma in the antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from Vietnam, respondent Go-Pak Vietnam argued in a May 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent also challenged Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the average unit values from two different subheadings to value its paper input, despite evidence showing that the company's paper is classified under only one of the subheadings (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).

The Court of International Trade on May 19 upheld CBP's final determination that importer Vanguard Trading Co. evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops. Judge Timothy Reif issued a confidential decision in the case upholding the evasion determination. Among other things, Vanguard challenged the strict liability standard that CBP established for importers regarding evasion and its ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during Enforce and Protect Act duty evasion investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

The Court of International Trade upheld May 16 the Commerce Department’s affirmative circumvention finding for solar cells from Cambodia, saying again -- as it did in a concurrent case -- (see 2505160045) that Commerce’s reliance on one country-of-origin factor, level of research and development investment, was reasonable.

The Court of International Trade on May 15 denied the government's bid to stay one of the major challenges to trade action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending resolution of earlier-filed cases challenging the tariff action. Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, who now preside over all major cases challenging IEEPA tariffs at the trade court (see 2505150009), concurrently granted a motion from the plaintiffs, represented by the libertarian group Pacific Legal Foundation, to expedite consideration of the case (Princess Awesome v CBP, CIT # 25-00078).

The Commerce Department is asking for public comments on how it can identify "masked" dumping in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Marmen v. U.S., which rejected the agency's use of the Cohen's d test. Commerce's International Trade Administration said parties should submit comments by May 30 regarding "alternatives to the use of the Cohen’s d test to define when prices differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and time periods."

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision finding that CBP isn't entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never actually travel to the U.S. (see 2503180018). The trade court sided with Southwest Airlines in the spat, finding that the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 58c(a), doesn't allow CBP to collect the fees where the customer doesn't travel to the U.S. and no customs inspection services are performed. The court also said CBP's guidance letters requiring airlines to pay the fees, when collected by the passenger but the passenger doesn't fly, can't usurp the agency's lack of an interest in the fees, according to the statute (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

The Court of International Trade on May 14 granted the government's bid for a voluntary remand in exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider Jiaxing Hoshine's original petition to revoke or modify the WRO and allow the exporter to submit additional evidence to the record (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).