The Commerce Department properly calculated the antidumping duty rate for the non-individually investigated respondents in an AD review by averaging the identical adverse facts available rates of the two mandatory respondents, the Court of International Trade held on July 18. Judge Gary Katzmann held that while Commerce said it took a simple average of the AFA rates and not a weighted average of the rates, which is the "expected method" for determining the all-others rate, the resulting 21.1% rate isn't a deviation from the expected method and is thus "presumptively reasonable."
Despite it being based on only two of five mandatory factors considered in a country-of-origin analysis, Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski sustained July 21 the Commerce Department’s determination that the manufacturing process of aluminum foil importer Hanon System’s South Korean producer was minor and insignificant. Echoing similar recent decisions (see 2505160045, 2505190059 and 2505190054), Laroski said Commerce reasonably weighed the five factors in its decision.
Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company took to the Court of International Trade on July 18 to get declaratory and injunctive relief from President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods. The importers argued that the tariffs, which are set to come into effect on Aug. 1, exceed Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and represent an unconstitutional delegation of power (Johanna Foods v. United States, CIT # 25-00155).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Appellants and domestic mattress petitioners objected July 8 to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit order to remove mattress importer Zinus’ own appeal from the combined appeal (see 2506250052) (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The U.S. is trying to rehash settled issues in a customs suit on the classification of Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes as part of an aircraft, Honeywell argued in a July 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While the government argued that the court should have performed a GRI 2(a) analysis, Honeywell argued that no such analysis was needed and that, even assuming GRI 2 is applicable, "the result is the same" that the parts are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
Importer Gum Products International filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on July 17 to contest the Commerce Department's scope rulings concerning the company's oilfield equipment lubricant and food ingredient products. In both scope determinations, Commerce said the importer's products fall under the scope of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China (Gum Products International v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00108, -00109).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against surety company XL Specialty Insurance on July 17, seeking over $3.6 million in unpaid duties and interested owed on customs bonds. The government said XL "materially breached the terms of the subject bonds" by refusing to pay following CBP's demand for payment (United States v. XL Specialty Insurance, CIT # 25-00154).
The U.S. opposed two importers' bid to have the Supreme Court hear their challenge to the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a chance to hear the case. The government argued that the high court shouldn't step in before either the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had a chance to address the claims against the IEEPA tariffs, particularly since both courts are hearing the appeals on very expedited timelines (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The Court of International Trade on July 18 granted the government's motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng, ordering the defendants to pay a civil penalty totaling nearly $3.4 million along with all duties, taxes and fees that remain unpaid on the unliquidated entries of mattress innersprings at issue in the case. Judge Timothy Stanceu granted the motion for default judgment after previously rejecting the government's valuation of the merchandise due to its lack of factual support. This time around, Stanceu found that the U.S. properly pleaded that Rayson and Cheng negligently declared their Chinese-origin innerspring as being from Thailand, avoiding ordinary 6% duties, Section 301 duties and 234.51% antidumping duties.