The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said Detroit Axle can't succeed in "obtaining the relief it seeks," since the trade court already granted the relief the importer seeks in the lead case on Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief pending appeal. The court then stayed the remainder of Detroit Axle's case pending resolution of the lead IEEPA tariff case.
Aluminum printing plate exporter Fujifilm Corp. said July 22 that the International Trade Commission had found its products caused domestic injury only by “finding that Fujifilm harmed itself” (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00251).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was assigned to the latest case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in a text-only order. Ezra was appointed to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, though he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Texas court in 2013 to help manage the court's caseload (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a group of three importers' challenge to the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood products from China, for lack of prosecution. The court noted that importers Cabinetworks Group Michigan, Cabinetworks Group Middlefield and ACPI Wood Products failed to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period after filing a summons (Cabinetworks Group Michigan v. United States, CIT # 25-00135).
The Commerce Department fully supported its finding that importer Deacero's pre-stressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand circumvented the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico, the U.S. argued in a July 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce fully supported its comparison of Deacero's U.S. and Mexican production facilities, finding that Deacero's PC strand production process is "minor or insignificant," and determination that Deacero's sourcing of inputs from its Mexican affiliates supported a circumvention finding (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).
The U.S. government's "newfound" theory of jurisdiction in two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is "both convoluted and wrong," the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
Petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 22 dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade on the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resin from Taiwan. The suit was filed June 26. Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00148).
Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on July 23, arguing that the Commerce Department illegally decided to limit the full duty drawback adjustment to which Assan is entitled by statute in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from Turkey. The result of the review was a 2.34% AD rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).
Wisconsin resident Gary Barnes' motion to have the Court of International Trade set aside its decision to dismiss his case against the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is an "unwarranted" motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said. Even if the motion is an amended complaint, as Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in ordering the government to respond, it fails to allege a "particularized, actual or imminent injury and should be dismissed," the U.S. said (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).