The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's finding that importer Vanguard Trading evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops, in a decision made public May 27. Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP wasn't required to make a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department under the statute, since CBP determined under its own authority that Vanguard's goods were covered products. Reif also said CBP wasn't required to stay the evasion proceeding after Vanguard filed a formal scope inquiry, noting that such a position would let an importer unilaterally achieve a "pause" in an evasion proceeding by filing a separate scope request with Commerce -- a position that is "plainly contrary" to the evasion statute's "legislative history." Reif then concluded that the evasion determination wasn't arbitrary or capricious.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A trade group that requested antidumping and countervailing duties on glass wine bottles brought a 27-count complaint to the Court of International Trade on May 21. The petitioner challenged the International Trade Commission’s determination that bottle imports weren’t harming the domestic industry (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00076).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty scope case filed by importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma. Judges Kimberly Moore, Haldane Mayer, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).
The Court of International Trade on May 23 assigned a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold on goods from China to Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani. The court has assigned these same three judges to all cases challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.
Plaintiffs challenging tariff action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a D.C. court said a Florida court's recent decision transferring a separate IEEPA tariff case to the Court of International Trade doesn't settle the jurisdictional issue. Filing a brief on May 22, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the Florida court "came to the wrong conclusion" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The Court of International Trade on May 23 dismissed Wisconsin man Gary Barnes' case against the ability of the president to impose tariffs. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Barnes didn't have standing because he failed to claim that any harm he would suffer by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is "particularized" or "actual or imminent."
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).