In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s administrative review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-origin aluminum foil, saying that the department had to reconsider or explain why it refused the review’s exporters a double remedies offset. It said the relevant law requires the department to calculate a subsidy's price impact based on what the price might have been without the subsidy, not on whether prices declined during the review period.

The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold on goods from China, which was made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said they already have granted all the relief the importer is seeking, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief.

Importer Fanuc Robotics America and the U.S. settled a customs case on the importer's robot mechanical units and robot control units. While the robot mechanical units were classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.5.000, dutiable at 2.5%, and the robot control units were classified under subheading 8537.10.90, dutiable at 2.7%, CBP agreed to liquidate the products under subheading 8428.90.00, free of duty; subheading 8515.21.00, free of duty; and 8515.310.00, dutiable at 1.6%. Settlement negotiations in the case proceeded over the past year specifically on two models of robot control units (see 2408260050) (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).

Responding July 18 to New Jersey resident Brandon Chen’s challenge of 11 questions on the April 2022 Customs Brokers License Exam (see 2411270026), the U.S. said CBP was right to determine Chen failed to achieve a passing 75% score (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

Challenging the result of a circumvention inquiry, Vietnamese exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. said July 21 that its decision to track its inputs’ country of origin “manually,” based on “transaction documents which recorded the supplier’s address,” didn’t warrant application of adverse facts available (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).

The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese goods. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said Detroit Axle can't succeed in "obtaining the relief it seeks," since the trade court already granted the relief the importer seeks in the lead case on Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief pending appeal. The court then stayed the remainder of Detroit Axle's case pending resolution of the lead IEEPA tariff case.

In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly ruled that, when deciding to impose a double remedies offset in an antidumping duty review with a parallel countervailing duty review, the Commerce Department must calculate whether a countervailable subsidy would have decreased a non-market economy exporter’s prices and dumping margin, not whether the exporter’s prices actually declined during a review period. However, she sustained the department’s choice of Romania as a surrogate in AD/CVD reviews of aluminum foil from China (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

Aluminum printing plate exporter Fujifilm Corp. said July 22 that the International Trade Commission had found its products caused domestic injury only by “finding that Fujifilm harmed itself” (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00251).

The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a group of three importers' challenge to the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood products from China, for lack of prosecution. The court noted that importers Cabinetworks Group Michigan, Cabinetworks Group Middlefield and ACPI Wood Products failed to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period after filing a summons (Cabinetworks Group Michigan v. United States, CIT # 25-00135).

The Commerce Department fully supported its finding that importer Deacero's pre-stressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand circumvented the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico, the U.S. argued in a July 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce fully supported its comparison of Deacero's U.S. and Mexican production facilities, finding that Deacero's PC strand production process is "minor or insignificant," and determination that Deacero's sourcing of inputs from its Mexican affiliates supported a circumvention finding (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).