The Court of International Trade on July 3 granted importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations' motion to include three documents the Commerce Department declined to put on the record in the antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said he needed the three documents to be on the record to properly review whether Commerce permissibly rejected them in the investigation. Katzmann also declined to consolidate Bridgetstone's suit with another case challenging the same AD investigation filed by the petitioner, United Steelworkers.
The Court of International Trade on July 3 sustained CBP's finding that importers Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said the evasion determination, which found that the importers transshipped Chinese glycine in Indonesia, was supported by substantial evidence. Following "an extensive in-person verification" of exporter PT Newtrend's Indonesian factory, CBP found the exporter couldn't make glycine at the scale PT Newtrend and the importers claimed. Vaden said there was substantial evidence for CBP's theory that PT Newtrend acquired glycine from its Chinese parent company to export to the U.S. and that the importers "offer no alternative explanation for how PT Newtrend acquired its glycine."
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public July 2 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that antidumping duty respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos and an unnamed supplier, referred to as "Supplier A," are neither affiliates nor partners. Judge Claire Kelly said the parties aren't affiliates, since neither party is reliant on the other nor controls the other, nor are they partners, since the companies aren't involved in a "cooperative business endeavor in which they share risk and reward."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in a customs case on the classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables. In May, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of the mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit (see 2505090024). The court held that the fruit ingredients give the mixtures their "essential character," making heading 0811 the proper heading for the products (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
Importer Cyber Power System's accessory cables are general "power cables," not "telecommunications cables," the U.S. said in a cross-motion for judgment June 27 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 21-00200).
CBP unlawfully excluded importer Agri Spray Drones' entries of drone controllers without explanation, the importer argued in a June 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Agri Spray Drones v. United States, CIT # 25-00141).
The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss importer Tri State Honey's suit against CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments, arguing that the case was untimely filed. The government said that since the case had to be brought 180 days from CBP's protest denial, which was April 25, and Tri State filed suit on April 29, "the case is untimely and therefore barred" (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).