The U.S. is using "magical thinking" as the basis for its defense in the case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Hand2Mind and Learning Resources, the plaintiffs in the suit currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In remand results released Aug. 15, the Commerce Department maintained its application of adverse facts available to Vietnamese exporters investigated in a solar cells circumvention inquiry (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00228).
Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly denied Aug. 20 a motion by various exporters to stay their case challenging antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on Chinese-origin aluminum foil (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
Chinese exporters of steel racks submitted a complaint Aug. 19 to the Court of International Trade objecting to the Commerce Department's use of Cohen's d test in its affirmative dumping finding (Jiangsu Nova Intelligent Logistics Equipment Co. v. U.S., CIT # 25-00175).
Domestic petitioner Catfish Farmers of America brought another case Aug. 19 against an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam -- this time, the review for the 2022-23 period (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 25-00156).
CBP failed to provide "substantial evidence" that importer Kana Energy Services Inc. imported Chinese-origin oil country tubular goods and arbitrarily applied adverse inferences in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion determination in an Enforce and Protect Act case on OCTG from Thailand, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 14 complaint (Kana Energy Services v. United States, CIT # 25-00186).
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems again said Aug. 15 that the plain language of the executive order establishing Section 232 exclusion requests doesn’t allow the Commerce Department to base denials on national security considerations (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. United States, CIT # 24-00101).
Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again remanded the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding South Korea’s below-cost provision of off-peak electricity in a countervailing duty administrative review, saying the department still hasn’t rationally explained why it grouped three unrelated industries and found that they, together, disproportionately received the subsidy.
Sidley trade practice co-lead Ted Muprhy advised clients to prepare now for a potential court ruling overturning International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs by downloading import reports from ACE to demonstrate how much they have paid in IEEPA tariffs since they began. He also said they should do so each month from now on, until there is a final resolution in court.
All the parties opposing the results of an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon argued that Commerce failed to correct two mathematical mistakes in its review results despite timely ministerial error allegations (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).