The U.S. government's "newfound" theory of jurisdiction in two importers' case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is "both convoluted and wrong," the importers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

Petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 22 dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade on the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on epoxy resin from Taiwan. The suit was filed June 26. Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00148).

Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on July 23, arguing that the Commerce Department illegally decided to limit the full duty drawback adjustment to which Assan is entitled by statute in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from Turkey. The result of the review was a 2.34% AD rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).

Kazakhstani ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC joined a Malaysian exporter in challenging the final determinations of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on its products (see 2507220068). It also challenged the International Trade Commission’s final injury determination (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00127, -00128, -00129).

Wisconsin resident Gary Barnes' motion to have the Court of International Trade set aside its decision to dismiss his case against the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump is an "unwarranted" motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said. Even if the motion is an amended complaint, as Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in ordering the government to respond, it fails to allege a "particularized, actual or imminent injury and should be dismissed," the U.S. said (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).

The International Trade Commission failed to include processors of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in the U.S. industry in an injury proceeding on imports of the product from China and India, importer Nufarm Americas argued in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nufarm added that the ITC largely ignored the fact that petitioner Corteva Agriscience "withdrew from the U.S. merchant market for 2,4-D acid and esters" to focus on making its patented downstream non-subject 2,4-D end use products" (Nufarm Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00133).

The Court of International Trade on July 22 granted four importers' voluntarily dismissals of six cases challenging the 2021-22 reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. In addition, the court dismissed importer Skyhigh Tech's case, per its request, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its drones were improperly deemed excluded.

Five importers and one Vietnamese exporter brought a total of 12 complaints to the Court of International Trade on July 18 challenging the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in circumvention inquiries regarding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China (Rugby Holdings LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00119, -00122) (Hardwoods Specialty Products US v. United States, CIT #s 25-00117, -00121) (USply LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00111, -00112) (Vincent Wood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00113, -00114) (Richmond International Forest Products LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00120, -00116) (Northwest Hardwoods, Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 25-00115, -00118).

In a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade, domestic antidumping duty petitioners CC Metals and Alloys and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. alleged a Malaysian ferrosilicon investigation’s mandatory respondent should have been hit with an adverse facts available rate. The respondent, meanwhile, challenged the AFA rate it did receive in the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation determination in its own complaint (CC Metals and Alloys v. United States, CIT # 25-00131).

Exporter Camel Group defended its motion to unredact and re-designate part of the administrative record in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 18 that the government won't suffer harm if Camel Group's lawyers can share the documents with the company. The exporter claimed that the government's interest in shielding the documents is "tarnished by continued inconsistencies in its designation" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).