The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 29 for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China regarding the use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The government said the Commerce Department's decision to use AFA on sales made by the respondent to U.S. customers who verified they didn't use the EBCP is inconsistent with the trade court's prior rulings on the program, which have bucked the use of AFA for U.S. buyers who have provided such verification (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).
Counsel for the Blackfeet Nation members challenging the imposition of tariffs on Native Americans asked the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the Nov. 5 oral argument session on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The members' attorney, Monica Tranel, asked for 15 minutes to argue her case during the hearing, saying her claim that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans isn't "addressed by the other parties" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Commerce Department on Sept. 26 stuck with its valuation of solar glass, an input in solar cells, and altered its adverse facts available calculations in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. The result left the AD rates for respondents Jinko Solar and Risen Energy unchanged, with Jinko receiving a 20.99% rate and Risen getting a 12.24% rate (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty petitioner Titan Tire dropped its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).
The U.S. on Sept. 24 opposed a company’s motion to resume its case challenging the end of de minimis, arguing that the case still raises the same legal questions as V.O.S. Selections vs. U.S. despite a new executive order officially rescinding de minimis globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The Supreme Court on Sept. 24 granted the government's request for permission to use up to 3,000 additional words in its reply brief in the cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Chief Justice John Roberts approved the application for 9,000 total words (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Sept. 24 ordered supplemental briefing in a case concerning the legality of tariffs imposed on Native Americans on the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to review an order transferring cases to another district court (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.