After several years of delay, plywood importer Cabinetworks Group Middlefield filed an Aug. 29 complaint alleging certain of its entries were wrongly assessed the China-wide 114.72% antidumping duty rate instead of its manufacturer’s and exporter’s 57.07% AD rate (Cabinetworks Group Middlefield v. United States, CIT # 21-00499).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (see 2508280047) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade held that Section 1318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930, which lets the president grant duty-free treatment to certain goods "for use in emergency relief work," doesn't cover solar cells and modules. As a result, Judge Timothy Reif vacated the Commerce Department's duty "pause" on collection of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam that were set to be collected from the four countries due to an anti-circumvention proceeding.

The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Sept. 6 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.

CBP unlawfully applied 10% Section 301 duties to importer Shaw Industries Group's Chinese flooring entries, since the goods were subject to an exclusion from the tariffs, Shaw argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Shaw Industries Group v. United States, CIT # 21-00400).

The Commerce Department permissibly decided not to countervail India's Advanced Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system, in the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Aug. 29.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl. Declining to address whether IEEPA categorically provides for tariffs, though spilling much ink on the topic, a majority of the court held that IEEPA doesn't confer unbounded tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. #s 25-1812, -1813).

The U.S. supported Aug. 27 the Commerce Department’s decision, after a voluntary remand, not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2018 review period (see 2507140055) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).

The Commerce Department failed to select more than one respondent in both the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on solar cells from Thailand, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee argued last week in a pair of complaints. The alliance, which served as the petitioner for both investigations, said that Commerce failed to abide by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent by not selecting more than one respondent where multiple companies are subject to the investigations (American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #s 25-00165, -00167).