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).

Canadian exporter Inferfor brought a June 11 complaint to the Court of International Trade arguing CBP had wrongly ended the suspension of liquidation on its entries during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on softwood lumber from Canada (Interfor Sales & Marketing v. United States, CIT # 25-00105).

Importer Monarch Metals told the Court of International Trade that its stainless steel wire imports are products of Japan and not China, meaning its goods were improperly subjected to Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. In a complaint filed June 13, Monarch Metals said that under CBP's prior application of the substantial transformation test to steel wire, no substantial transformation occurs by drawing steel rod into steel wire (Monarch Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00266).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).

The U.S. and defendant-intervenors led by Archer Daniels Midland each argued June 10 that Loper Bright doesn’t impact the Commerce Department’s discretion in deciding to use a mandatory review respondent’s annual conversion costs and quarterly direct material costs (Citribel v. United States, CIT # 24-00010).