Court of International Trade activity

The Court of International Trade on June 12 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to prorate the countervailing duty set for exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. in the CVD investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce's approach is supported by substantial evidence and is superior to using total adverse facts available against Ancientree due to the Chinese government's failure to supply information about the EBCP.

The Court of International Trade on June 16 held that the Commerce Department's regulations setting deadlines to file separate rate applications and certifications can't supersede the statutory requirement to pick mandatory respondents based on the volume of their exports. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce erred in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China by picking respondents based on value and not volume of U.S. sales and in declining to consider the largest exporter, Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, based on its untimely separate rate certification. The judge said Dongsheng's information was "reasonably available" to the agency, since it was filed the same time as the information from other respondents who received filing extensions.

Stephen Vaden, current judge on the Court of International Trade, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as deputy secretary of agriculture. The Senate confirmed Vaden with a 51-44 vote split exactly down party lines. Five senators -- Ted Budd, R-N.C., Jon Ossoff, R-Ga., Thom Tillis R-N.C., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., -- didn't take part in the vote.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).

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).

Importer Meyer Corporation U.S. and the U.S. traded supplemental briefs last week following a bench trial at the Court of International Trade on whether Meyer's cookware imports are entitled to first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation U.S. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 11 told the parties in the appeal concerning tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file motions governing future proceedings in the appeal within 14 days of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's stay of the Court of International Trade's decision to vacate all IEEPA tariff action pending appeal. Parties in the D.C. Circuit case agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in the appeal, prompting the court's instruction to set a briefing schedule. The parties' proposed schedules are due 14 days after June 10, which is the date the Federal Circuit stayed the CIT ruling (see 2506100076) (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-1248).

Importer Eteros Technologies USA last week defended the notion that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear the company's case alleging that CBP illegally retaliated against the company for its success before the trade court. Eteros said CBP's claimed basis for taking the allegedly retaliatory action against Eteros and its executives, that the company is "aiding and abetting narcotics trafficking," is "factually baseless" and "legally impermissible" in light of the trade court's ruling in Eteros' past case before CIT (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

Litigants in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act filed a proposed briefing schedule before the appellate court that would conclude briefing by July 18 (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).