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).
The International Trade Commission failed to include processors of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in the U.S. industry in an injury proceeding on imports of the product from China and India, importer Nufarm Americas argued in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nufarm added that the ITC largely ignored the fact that petitioner Corteva Agriscience "withdrew from the U.S. merchant market for 2,4-D acid and esters" to focus on making its patented downstream non-subject 2,4-D end use products" (Nufarm Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00133).
The Court of International Trade on July 22 granted four importers' voluntarily dismissals of six cases challenging the 2021-22 reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. In addition, the court dismissed importer Skyhigh Tech's case, per its request, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its drones were improperly deemed excluded.
Five importers and one Vietnamese exporter brought a total of 12 complaints to the Court of International Trade on July 18 challenging the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in circumvention inquiries regarding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China (Rugby Holdings LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00119, -00122) (Hardwoods Specialty Products US v. United States, CIT #s 25-00117, -00121) (USply LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00111, -00112) (Vincent Wood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00113, -00114) (Richmond International Forest Products LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00120, -00116) (Northwest Hardwoods, Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00115, -00118).
In a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade, domestic antidumping duty petitioners CC Metals and Alloys and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. alleged a Malaysian ferrosilicon investigation’s mandatory respondent should have been hit with an adverse facts available rate. The respondent, meanwhile, challenged the AFA rate it did receive in the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation determination in its own complaint (CC Metals and Alloys v. United States, CIT # 25-00131).
Conservative advocacy group the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed another lawsuit challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs and that the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump aren't "necessary" to address the declared emergencies. The alliance filed its suit on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of outdoor cooking product maker FIREDISC, the Game Manufacturers Association and wood product maker Ryan Wholesale (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
The Commerce Department adequately supported its de facto specificity finding regarding Indian state-run coal supplier Coal India's provision of coal to respondent Hindalco Inndustries for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a July 22 decision. In the ruling, Judge Joseph Laroski also upheld Commerce's decision to use U.N. Comtrade data as a benchmark for calculating the size of the coal subsidy in the 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India.
Orange juice importers Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Company on July 22 asked the Court of International Trade to either temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoin the federal government from "imposing and enforcing" President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Filing a combined application for a temporary restraining order and motions for a preliminary or permanent injunction, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage said the tariff isn't a proper exercise of either Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Johanna Foods v. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, CIT # 25-00155).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 18 stayed two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the appeal (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).