The U.S. supported May 19 its motion to dismiss Canadian exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ challenge to the results of a Commerce Department pipe investigation (see 2503250054). The exporter has admitted it erred when it filed under the wrong jurisdictional regulation, the government said (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
The Commerce Department improperly failed to respond to an antidumping duty petitioner's claim that a submission from AD review respondent Assan Aluminyum regarding its duty drawback adjustment didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal, the Court of International Trade held on May 21. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce can't pursue the goal of calculating an accurate dumping margin "without regard for procedural constraints."
Importer Detroit Axle on May 21 moved the Court of International Trade for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment against President Donald Trump's elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods and tariffs on Chinese products. In its motion, the importer argued that it's likely to succeed on the merits of its case, which outlines two bases for finding Trump's actions unlawful: that the president exceeded his statutory authority in ending de minimis for China, and that the agency actions implementing the order are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Fluid end block exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen attempted to "inject" an end-use requirement into antidumping and countervailing duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks, the U.S. said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. BGH Edelstahl argues that its forged steel blocks are not “fluid end blocks" because they aren't specifically meant for use in hydraulic pumps, it said (see 2503190024) (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).
Agricultural cooperative Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas dismissed its antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade on May 21, according to a notice of dismissal. The group brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's first review of the AD order on raw honey from Argentina. An attorney close to the matter said the suit was filed just in case Commerce denied the group's ministerial error claim. The agency then recognized the claim, reducing the group's AD rate. The group then withdrew its summons so the liquidation of its entries could proceed more quickly, the attorney said (Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas v. United States, CIT # 25-00086).
The Court of International Trade sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's second remand results in a suit on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China in a confidential May 21 order. Judge Mark Barnett sent back Commerce's selection of exporter Shandong Linglong Tyre as a mandatory respondent and the agency's decision to rescind Linglong's separate-rate status (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00069).
CBP wrongly found that couplings imported by Pusan Coupling originated in China instead of South Korea, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade (Pusan Coupling Corp. v. United States, CIT # 25-00092).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 20 transferred a case challenging certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. Judge T. Kent Wetherell largely rested his decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- the nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (Emily Ley Paper d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).