The Commerce Department unlawfully used "zeroing" in calculating respondent YDD Corporation's antidumping margin in the AD investigation on ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan, YDD argued in a Nov. 7 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The respondent said Commerce has a "long-established practice of not using zeroing," yet the agency "departed from this practice" when calculating the company's AD rate "without providing any explanation for this change in practice" (YDD Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00100).
An exporter that has domestic production facilities can be injured by its own imports, the International Trade Commission argued in an Oct. 20 response brief to aluminum plate manufacturer Fujifilm Corp. (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).
Twenty-seven amicus briefs were filed at the Supreme Court on Oct. 24 in opposition to the ability of President Donald Trump to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, bringing to 35 the total number of amicus briefs filed at the high court against the tariffs. The amici are a mix of law professors, current and former government officials, policy advocacy groups, economists and individual companies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."
Solar cell importers and exporters, led by the American Clean Power Association, moved the Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 to stay its ruling vacating the Commerce Department's 2022-2024 duty "pause" on the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 2 heard oral argument in a case from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods, against the International Trade Commission's finding of critical circumstances for the importers' Vietnamese honey imports, which led to the retroactive imposition of antidumping duties on entries made in the 90-day window prior to the suspension of liquidation. Ron Kendler, counsel for the importers, argued that the ITC violated the logic of the critical circumstances statute, while ITC attorney Michael Haldenstein and Melissa Brower, counsel for petitioner American Honey Producers Association, said the commission's decision was entirely in bounds of the law (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).
The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.
Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker remanded Aug. 22 the Commerce Department’s decision to combine Belgian citric acid review respondent Citribel’s quarterly raw material costs with its annualized conversion costs.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 11 upheld the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. In the case, exporter Yingli Energy argued that the trade court should strike down the Commerce Department's ordinary presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under foreign government control, urging the court to undertake a Loper Bright analysis of the AD statute (see 2506050001) (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. U.S, CIT # 24-00131).
All active judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 heard oral argument in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 11 judges peppered counsel for the government and the parties challenging the tariffs, which include five importers and 12 U.S. states, with questions about whether the statute authorizes tariffs at all; whether there are limits to that tariff authority, should it exist; and whether the major questions or non-delegation doctrines strip IEEPA of its ability to convey tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).