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 Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Issuing a decision after a five-day bench trial held last year, Judge Stephen Vaden said, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for pullovers.

The U.S. last week filed a supplemental brief regarding its motion to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China." In the brief, the government discussed a 2010 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co. v. U.S., which the U.S. says supports dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).

The Commerce Department erred in including importer GameChange Solar's off-grid solar charging modules in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells, the importer argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade last week. GameChange argued that Commerce "unlawfully" said its goods don't fit under the orders' exclusions for consumer goods or off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels (GameChange Solar v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).

The Court of International Trade on June 16 denied importer Detroit Axle's request that the trade court reconsider its briefing schedule on its motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for goods from China. As a result, the U.S. reply to the PI motion is due June 20 and the importer's reply is due on July 7 (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

Plaintiffs in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff suit currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit filed an additional brief in support of their bid to tie the briefing schedule to the briefing schedule of the IEEPA tariff suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Court of International Trade correctly found that importer Ildico’s watches didn't have cases made “wholly” of precious metals and that the importer was relying on too narrow a definition of "watch cases," the U.S. argued June 13 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Ildico Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1337).

The Commerce Department's regulations allowing it to set deadlines to file separate rate applications or certifications can't trump its statutory duty to examine the largest exporters by volume in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China, the Court of International Trade held on June 16. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that under the facts of the review, the agency improperly declined to consider exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent despite it being the largest exporter of subject goods to the U.S. due to its untimely separate rate application.

The Court of International Trade on June 13 granted importer Canadian Solar (USA)'s bid to voluntarily dismiss its case claiming CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after CIT struck down the first Donald Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Canadian Solar originally brought the suit in 2022 to claim that CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels after CIT found the revocation to be illegal (see 2210070084). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the trade court's decision after Canadian Solar filed suit, allowing the U.S. to reverse the tariff exemption and put the tariff back in place (see 2408130019) (Canadian Solar (USA) v. United States, CIT # 22-00295).

Canadian exporter Inferfor brought a June 11 complaint to the Court of International Trade arguing CBP had wrongly ended the suspension of liquidation on its entries during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on softwood lumber from Canada (Interfor Sales & Marketing v. United States, CIT # 25-00105).