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).
In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s administrative review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-origin aluminum foil, saying that the department had to reconsider or explain why it refused the review’s exporters a double remedies offset. It said the relevant law requires the department to calculate a subsidy's price impact based on what the price might have been without the subsidy, not on whether prices declined during the review period.
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).
Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski held July 21 that importer Hanon Systems’ aluminum foil originated from China, not South Korea, sustaining a Commerce Department decision that analyzed the five mandatory factors in a country-of-origin analysis and found only two weighed in favor of China.
Domestic chlorinated isocyanurates producer Bio-Lab argued in a July 15 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department should have used Mexico, not Romania, as the primary surrogate in an antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 11 upheld Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology's designation as a "Chinese military company." Judge Paul Friedman waded through issues of statutory interpretation regarding the Pentagon's definition of the phrase "military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base" and DOD's evidentiary basis for finding that this phrase describes Hesai (Hesai Technology v. U.S. Dep't of Def., D.D.C. # 24-01381).
Wooden cabinet importers led by Cabinetworks Group argued June 27 that the U.S. hadn’t acknowledged the impact of Loper Bright on the Commerce Department’s ability to conduct circumvention determinations -- Congress didn’t “delegate unfettered authority to Commerce,” they said (ACProducts v. United States, CIT #s 24-00155, -00156).
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."