The Court of International Trade on May 19 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that solar cells from Vietnam circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "arbitrarily treated its adverse facts available finding" on one of the mandatory respondents "as the administrative equivalent of landing on 'Go to Jail'" for the unexamined companies. The agency still has to address every statutory circumvention factor and balance them, the judge said. However, Baker upheld the ability of Commerce to extend the AFA determination to the cooperating unexamined companies, since the agency did so on the basis that the uncooperating party accounted for a "significant volume of Vietnamese solar cells."
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision finding that CBP isn't entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never actually travel to the U.S. (see 2503180018). The trade court sided with Southwest Airlines in the spat, finding that the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 58c(a), doesn't allow CBP to collect the fees where the customer doesn't travel to the U.S. and no customs inspection services are performed. The court also said CBP's guidance letters requiring airlines to pay the fees, when collected by the passenger but the passenger doesn't fly, can't usurp the agency's lack of an interest in the fees, according to the statute (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).
The Court of International Trade on May 14 granted the government's bid for a voluntary remand in exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider Jiaxing Hoshine's original petition to revoke or modify the WRO and allow the exporter to submit additional evidence to the record (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
In support of its motion to dismiss (see 2503170067), the U.S. said again that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s case is “substantively the same” as a prior one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pushed forward, in a text-ony order, its hearing on whether to transfer the state of California's case against all tariff action imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The hearing will now take place on May 27 at 1:30 p.m. EST (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).
The Court of International Trade assigned the third major challenge to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the same three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif. The case at issue, brought on behalf of 11 importers by libertarian advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation, was brought to challenge President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed on China for the fentanyl emergency (see 2504250038). The suit will now be heard by the same three judges hearing lawsuits against the IEEPA tariffs brought by another libertarian group and 12 U.S. states (Princess Awesome v U.S. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.
The Court of International Trade on May 16 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's circumvention determinations on solar cells made by Trina Solar Science & Technology, Canadian Solar International and BYD. On the findings that Trina and Canadian Solar circumvented the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells via Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce permissibly placed dispositive weight on the amount invested into research and development in the companies' Thailand facilities to show that the operations in these facilities were "minor or insignificant." Baker also sustained the agency's finding that BYD circumvented the orders via Cambodia, similarly upholding Commerce's reliance on the level of R&D into BYD's Cambodia facilities.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade: