The Court of International Trade on July 31 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's scope ruling on importer School Specialty's No. 2 pencils made in the Philippines with Chinese-origin raw material inputs. Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce failed to discuss how it balanced its various findings after conducting a "substantial transformation" analysis and looking at where the pencil's "essential component" was made. However, Baker individually sustained Commerce's conclusions regarding the different factors found in these analyses.

In a July 24 complaint, Chinese-origin 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyactic acid (2,4-D) importer PBI-Gordon Corp. challenged the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury determination regarding its products on a number of fronts (PBI-Gordon Corp. v. United States, CIT # 25-00140).

In its motion for judgment July 25, petitioner Cornerstone Chemical Co. again argued (see 2502070029) that Turkey was the wrong surrogate selection for a Commerce Department investigation on melamine from Qatar because of different particular market situations that existed in both Turkey and Qatar (Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).

An entry of gold jewelry from Oman qualifies for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, importer Empire Jewelry argued in a July 28 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The importer noted that CBP doesn't disagree as to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that applies to the case, subheading 7113.19.5090, but rather whether the jewelry originates in Oman under the terms of the FTA (Empire Jewelry v. United States, CIT # 24-00127).

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 on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the "indefiniteness of the threatened action," which Trump said will take effect on Aug. 1, "dooms" the importers' "request for emergency relief in the form of a TRO." The judge said neither Trump nor any agency "has taken final action that is subject to judicial review by this Court."

Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett pressed counsel for petitioner Edsal Manufacturing during oral argument on July 23 regarding the company's challenge to the Commerce Department's surrogate financial statement selection in the antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units from Thailand. Barnett also sharply questioned Edsal's counsel regarding their challenge to Commerce's use of the commercial invoice date as the date of sale for respondent Siam Metal Tech's U.S. sales and the agency's reliance on respondent Bangkok Sheet Metal's total cost of manufacture value (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

Importer Tri State Honey on July 24 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments. In filing the suit, the company said CBP unlawfully detained the shipments and held them for nearly a year without explanation (see 2504300014). The importer was seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, since CBP allegedly violated the company's "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin. Counsel for Tri State Honey didn't respond to a request for comment (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).

The U.S. asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the latest International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade and to stay briefing on the companies' challenging the tariffs' motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the transfer motion. The government said four courts have found that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, while just one has "declined to transfer the case to the CIT or dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).

The Commerce Department cannot investigate "transnational" subsidies, countervailing duty respondent Kukdo Chemical argued in a July 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resins from South Korea, Kukdo said it's challenging "any and all substantive aspects of Commerce's" finding that the company received a countervailable subsidy via the provision of Epichlorohydrin (ECH) for less than adequate remuneration from China (Kukdo Chemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00146).