The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. on May 20 dropped its antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade, filing a stipulation of dismissal at the court. The exporter filed the case to challenge the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the AD order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Counsel for Dongkuk didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00075).
The U.S. told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Court of International Trade's recent hearing in the lead case on the use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs bolsters its bid to transfer a similar case in the D.C. court to the trade court (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
Counsel for four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe challenging certain tariff action taken by President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court's recent decision in AARP v. Trump supports its interlocutory appeal of a Montana district court's decision to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade (Susan Webber v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir. # 25-2717).
The Court of International Trade on May 19 granted importer Inspired Ventures' motion to refer its customs suit to court-annexed mediation. Judge Lisa Wang disagreed with the government's reasons for opposing mediation, which included claims that the controversy in the case is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
Twelve U.S. states challenging all tariff actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act traded briefs with the government on the legality of the tariffs ahead of a May 21 hearing on the states' motion for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The parties sparred on whether the eight states that didn't act as direct importers have standing to challenge the tariffs, whether the IEEPA tariffs have a reasonable connection to the declared threats of trade deficits and the flow of fenantyl, and whether the term "regulate" in the statute confers the power to impose tariffs (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
The Commerce Department improperly used the financial statements of Indonesian company PT Suparma in the antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from Vietnam, respondent Go-Pak Vietnam argued in a May 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent also challenged Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the average unit values from two different subheadings to value its paper input, despite evidence showing that the company's paper is classified under only one of the subheadings (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).
The Court of International Trade on May 19 upheld CBP's final determination that importer Vanguard Trading Co. evaded the antidumping duty order on Chinese quartz countertops. Judge Timothy Reif issued a confidential decision in the case upholding the evasion determination. Among other things, Vanguard challenged the strict liability standard that CBP established for importers regarding evasion and its ability to decide when it must seek scope clarification from the Commerce Department during Enforce and Protect Act duty evasion investigations (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).
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.
The Court of International Trade on May 19 sent back the Commerce Department's circumvention finding on solar cells from Vietnam just days after sustaining two circumvention findings on solar cells from Thailand and Cambodia. Judge M. Miller Baker said in the Vietnamese circumvention case that Commerce "arbitrarily treated its adverse facts available finding as the administrative equivalent of landing on 'Go to Jail.'"