The Court of International Trade's decision to vacate the executive orders imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't "withstand close scrutiny," NYU Law School professor Samuel Estreicher and recent law school grad Andrew Babbit said in a blog post.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on July 15 opposed importer Simplified's bid to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its stay of proceedings in its case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that Simplified's case will be resolved by the current appeal on the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
The Commerce Department appropriately stuck with its decision on remand to select Germany as the third country for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on Dutch mushrooms, the Court of International Trade held on July 16. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce fully supported its efforts to account for the percent of Prochamp's product sold to Germany that is actually resold in another country and, thus, its finding that Germany remained the best comparison market.
The Court of International Trade on July upheld the Commerce Department's finding on remand that antidumping duty respondent Megaa Moda didn't have either actual or constructive knowledge that its sales to an unnamed company were destined for export to the U.S. Judge Thomas Aquilino said that while he may have come to a different conclusion upon reviewing the evidence de novo, it's not the court's role to substitute its judgment for Commerce's when the choice is "between two conflicting views."
Importers Waaree Energies and ISS Global Forwarding Texas on July 14 dropped their case at the Court of International Trade on CBP's collection of excess safeguard duties on solar cell imports. The case was stayed pending resolution of Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., which concerned President Donald Trump's revocation of the tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in SEIA that the tariff exclusion revocation was lawful (see 2311130031) (Waaree Energies v. United States, CIT #22-00296).
Exporters BYD (H.K.), Canadian Solar International and Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) will appeal a pair of May Court of International Trade decisions finding that various exporters circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand and Cambodia (see 2505160045). In both decisions, the trade court upheld Commerce's decision to put special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment the companies put into their Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant."
The Commerce Department was right to find that the material terms of exporter Toyo Kohan’s U.S. sales were finalized the earlier of each sale’s shipment date or invoice date, the government and petitioner Thomas Steel Strip Corp. each said July 11 (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision in Worldwide Door Components v. U.S. regarding a scope decision on aluminum extrusions "has no bearing" on the court's consideration of a pair of scope cases regarding freight rail couplers, petitioner the Coalition of Freight Rail Couplers said. Responding to importer Wabtec's notice of supplemental authority regarding the Worldwide decision, the petitioner said the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions is "distinct" from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on freight couplers at issue in the present case (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT #'s 23-00160, -00161).
The Court of International Trade on July 16 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands, upholding the agency's decision to select Germany as the third country for determining respondent Prochamp's normal value. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce adequately addressed the issue in Prochamp's German data, which indicated the company's German buyer likely resold Prochamp's mushrooms in Germany and another country. Commerce's efforts to proximate how much of Prochamp's product sold to Germany is resold in another country, along with the agency's subsequent finding that Germany still provided the best comparison market, is adequately supported, the court held.