The Court of International Trade on July 10 heard oral argument in importer Detroit Axle's case against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani pressed counsel for both the U.S. and the importer on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to take such action, given the specific language at play in both IEEPA and 19 U.S.C. 1321, the de minimis statute (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

Importer Smith-Cooper International on July 10 dismissed its case challenging an antidumping duty scope ruling it initially filed in 2019. The Commerce Department's scope ruling had found that the company's Cooplet weld outlets are subject to AD on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to request for comment on the case (Smith-Cooper International v. United States, CIT # 19-00011).

Exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. and importer Craft33 Products said in two July 7 motions for judgment that the Commerce Department had again wrongly applied adverse facts available claiming potential use of China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

The Commerce Department released July 9 its remand results of a scope ruling on calcium glycinate from India, Japan and Thailand. It said it now finds that calcium glycinate is covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine “regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer” (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

The Court of International Trade's recent "dictum" on whether the Tariff Act of 1930 lets the Commerce Department impose antidumping duties and countervailing duties on an upstream product that's incorporated into a downstream product imported into the U.S. isn't relevant for adjudication of a pair of separate AD/CVD scope cases, the U.S. said (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

The U.S. opposed exporter Camel Group's motion to unredact part of the record in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 10 that disclosure of information deemed confidential "would substantially harm the Government's" law enforcement efforts in applying the UFLPA. The government told the Court of International Trade it has a "strong interest in protecting the law enforcement sensitive information," while Camel has "no compelling argument as to why disclosure to the public, or to Camel, as opposed to confidential disclosure, is necessary" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).

The Commerce Department showed its work in finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods is independent of the Vietnamese government and thus eligible for a separate rate under an antidumping duty order on Vietnamese catfish in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order, the Court of International Trade held on July 10. Judge M. Miller Baker also held that Commerce properly assigned exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company an AD rate taken from a simple average of respondent NTSF Seafood's zero percent rate and East Sea's adverse facts available rate.

The Commerce Department failed to correct for respondent Dongkuk S&C's conversion costs and improperly relied on Dongkuk's information from a past antidumping duty review as the basis for constructed value ratios, petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in a July 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner brought the suit to contest the 2022-23 review of the AD order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00104).

Power supply and cables importer PowerTec Solutions agreed on July 8 to the government’s partial motion to dismiss the importer's case seeking a duty refund (PowerTec Solutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).

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).