Responding July 18 to New Jersey resident Brandon Chen’s challenge of 11 questions on the April 2022 Customs Brokers License Exam (see 2411270026), the U.S. said CBP was right to determine Chen failed to achieve a passing 75% score (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

There may be a "bifurcated" process for duty refund should the plaintiffs prevail in litigation over the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade lawyer said. That could include a court-ordered process in addition to a separate administrative process because of the volume of claims that will arise should the courts decide that IEEPA is not an appropriate authority for tariffs.

Challenging the result of a circumvention inquiry, Vietnamese exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. said July 21 that its decision to track its inputs’ country of origin “manually,” based on “transaction documents which recorded the supplier’s address,” didn’t warrant application of adverse facts available (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).

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

Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was assigned to the latest case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in a text-only order. Ezra was appointed to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, though he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Texas court in 2013 to help manage the court's caseload (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).

The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a group of three importers' challenge to the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood products from China, for lack of prosecution. The court noted that importers Cabinetworks Group Michigan, Cabinetworks Group Middlefield and ACPI Wood Products failed to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period after filing a summons (Cabinetworks Group Michigan v. United States, CIT # 25-00135).

The Commerce Department fully supported its finding that importer Deacero's pre-stressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand circumvented the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico, the U.S. argued in a July 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce fully supported its comparison of Deacero's U.S. and Mexican production facilities, finding that Deacero's PC strand production process is "minor or insignificant," and determination that Deacero's sourcing of inputs from its Mexican affiliates supported a circumvention finding (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).

Petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 22 dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade on the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resin from Taiwan. The suit was filed June 26. Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00148).

Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on July 23, arguing that the Commerce Department illegally decided to limit the full duty drawback adjustment to which Assan is entitled by statute in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from Turkey. The result of the review was a 2.34% AD rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).

Kazakhstani ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC joined a Malaysian exporter in challenging the final determinations of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on its products (see 2507220068). It also challenged the International Trade Commission’s final injury determination (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00127, -00128, -00129).