The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The importer seeking class certification at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act voluntarily dismissed its case June 16. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13 issued its mandate in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its process for detecting "masked" dumping. In the decision, the appellate court said Commerce can't use the test when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous" (see 2504220030). The court said it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to data that doesn't satisfy basic statistical assumptions. As a result of the ruling, Commerce opened a public comment period to explore alternatives to using the test (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The U.S. last week filed a supplemental brief regarding its motion to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China." In the brief, the government discussed a 2010 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co. v. U.S., which the U.S. says supports dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).
The Commerce Department erred in including importer GameChange Solar's off-grid solar charging modules in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells, the importer argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade last week. GameChange argued that Commerce "unlawfully" said its goods don't fit under the orders' exclusions for consumer goods or off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels (GameChange Solar v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).
The Court of International Trade on June 16 denied importer Detroit Axle's request that the trade court reconsider its briefing schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for goods from China. As a result, the U.S. reply to the PI motion is due June 20 and the importer's reply is due on July 7 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
Plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff suit currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit filed an additional brief in support of their bid to tie the briefing schedule to the briefing schedule of the IEEPA tariff suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 12 issued mandates in two trade cases. In one, it said the Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination (see 2504210029). The court said the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations. In the other case, the court affirmed the Commerce Department's decision to adjust wind tower exporter Dongkuk S&C Co.'s steel plate input costs based on price fluctuations unrelated to the plate's physical characteristics in the input's price over time (see 2504210022) (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274) (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).
The Court of International Trade on June 13 granted importer Canadian Solar (USA)'s bid to voluntarily dismiss its case claiming CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after CIT struck down the first Donald Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Canadian Solar originally brought the suit in 2022 to claim that CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels after CIT found the revocation to be illegal (see 2210070084). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the trade court's decision after Canadian Solar filed suit, allowing the U.S. to reverse the tariff exemption and put the tariff back in place (see 2408130019) (Canadian Solar (USA) v. United States, CIT # 22-00295).
Indian exporter Chandan Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 4 that the 145% total adverse facts available antidumping duty rate it received wasn’t justified by a reporting error that affected only 0.4% of its U.S. sales (Chandan Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1291).