The Court of International Trade in a decision made public July 2 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that antidumping duty respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos and an unnamed supplier, referred to as "Supplier A," are neither affiliates nor partners. Judge Claire Kelly said the parties aren't affiliates, since neither party is reliant on the other nor controls the other, nor are they partners, since the companies aren't involved in a "cooperative business endeavor in which they share risk and reward."
The Court of International Trade on June 26 heard oral argument in a suit from U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy against the Biden administration's decision to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Judge Timothy Reif heard from DOJ, the plaintiffs and counsel for various solar cell importers and exporters on whether Auxin waited too long to file suit and the propriety of applying retroactive relief, given that the affected importers would be subject to massive antidumping and countervailing duties without a chance for review (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
Importer Crutchfield filed an amicus brief on June 26 in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Crutchfield argued that President Donald Trump's claim that IEEPA grants the president "unilateral and unreviewable authority to impose, increase, decrease, suspend, or alter tariffs on virtually every country in the world" can't be squared with the statute's plain language and the U.S. Constitution (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Court of International Trade on June 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves reviewed and sustained the ITC's decision to cumulate the imports from the four countries and its determination regarding the imports' "volume, price effects, and impact."
Only the Supreme Court can provide the "finality and certainty that America's businesses need" in ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, libertarian advocacy group the Washington Legal Foundation argued in a June 18 amicus brief. Urging the high court to take up two importers' IEEPA suit prior to full review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation argued that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs and that only SCOTUS can "provide certainty and finality on that question" (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).
The U.S. and defendant-intervenors led by Archer Daniels Midland each argued June 10 that Loper Bright doesn’t impact the Commerce Department’s discretion in deciding to use a mandatory review respondent’s annual conversion costs and quarterly direct material costs (Citribel v. United States, CIT # 24-00010).
Chinese exporter Yingli Energy on June 3 supported its argument that the Court of International Trade should strike down the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under government control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).
The Court of International Trade upheld May 16 the Commerce Department’s affirmative circumvention finding for solar cells from Cambodia, saying again -- as it did in a concurrent case -- (see 2505160045) that Commerce’s reliance on one country-of-origin factor, level of research and development investment, was reasonable.
A group of five small importers filed their opposition to the U.S. government's motion to transfer their case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. The importers, led by Simplified, argued that CIT doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case because IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs (Emily Ley Paper v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Fla. # 3:25-00464).
In an April 14 opinion, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department’s final determination in its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. He upheld the department’s usual two-step surrogate selection process under Loper Bright, but he found that Commerce erred in its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isos.