The U.S. is using "magical thinking" as the basis for its defense in the case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Hand2Mind and Learning Resources, the plaintiffs in the suit currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In remand results released Aug. 15, the Commerce Department maintained its application of adverse facts available to Vietnamese exporters investigated in a solar cells circumvention inquiry (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00228).
In a reply brief, California said Aug. 18 that the U.S. had conceded the state’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs “arises out of” the IEEPA. The government’s following argument, that it also arises from Trump’s recent executive orders modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to implement the tariffs, fails because those orders weren’t authorized by a “law of the United States,” it said (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
The Court of International Trade dismissed Aug. 21 a case brought by Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving in an attempt to secure a lower antidumping duty cash deposit rate for some of its entries.
Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly denied Aug. 20 a motion by various exporters to stay their case challenging antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on Chinese-origin aluminum foil (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
Chinese exporters of steel racks submitted a complaint Aug. 19 to the Court of International Trade objecting to the Commerce Department's use of Cohen's d test in its affirmative dumping finding (Jiangsu Nova Intelligent Logistics Equipment Co. v. U.S., CIT # 25-00175).
Domestic petitioner Catfish Farmers of America brought another case Aug. 19 against an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam -- this time, the review for the 2022-23 period (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 25-00156).
CBP failed to provide "substantial evidence" that importer Kana Energy Services Inc. imported Chinese-origin oil country tubular goods and arbitrarily applied adverse inferences in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion determination in an Enforce and Protect Act case on OCTG from Thailand, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 14 complaint (Kana Energy Services v. United States, CIT # 25-00186).
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif ruled Aug. 21 that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s 2022 case challenging the cash deposit rate assigned to certain entries should have been brought to a binational panel under 1581(c), not to the trade court under 1581(i). He said that the “true nature” of the exporter’s case was a challenge to a 2019 antidumping duty review’s results. His analysis, he said, was identical to the analysis offered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when it upheld Reif’s dismissal of the exporter’s prior case (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).
Over opposition from the government, which said that the Court of International Trade didn't have the power to extend complaint deadlines, the trade court let honey exporters led by Ban Me Thout Honeybee file their complaint out of time in an order Aug. 15. The court said it would follow up its order with its reasoning in a later filing.