The Commerce Department interpreted and applied its regulations contrary to Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 when it rejected petitioner Catfish Farmers of America's ministerial error allegation in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 15. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce erred in only allowing the petitioner to raise ministerial error allegations regarding the final determination that couldn't have been raised in the petitioner's case brief, finding that this cut against the "express requirement of Section 751(h)." However, the judge did uphold the agency's decision not to use facts otherwise available against respondent CASEAMEX related to its reporting of its packing costs.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 denied a motion for an injunction stopping liquidation of entries from a group of importers that filed challenges to International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that an injunction is unnecessary because the trade court has the authority to reliquidate finally liquidated entries from the importers that filed suit under the court's 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) jurisdiction if the Supreme Court invalidates the tariffs. The judges also noted the government's commitment that it won't fight against CIT's ability to order refunds, finding the U.S. is barred from changing its position in the future.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. moved to toss a group of importers' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for failure to identify a proper "jurisdictional grant or cause of action," arguing that the companies should have raised their claims before the Commerce Department first (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).

Attorneys at Crowell & Moring asked the Court of International Trade on Dec. 11 for a hearing regarding its motion for a preliminary injunction in its lead case seeking refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT # 25-00255).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the court's decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Judge Timothy Reif said that while he did mistakenly say that the "allegation assessment" was insufficient to support the forced labor finding, the mistake was a "harmless error," since it's clear from context that the court was actually referring to CBP's on-site verification report. Reif added that no mistake of law was made regarding his decision to vacate the finding, rather than remanding without vacatur, since the U.S. didn't respond to Kingtom's request for vacatur.

The Court of International Trade "rewrote" a precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and "effectively nullified" three AD/CVD orders on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China when it held that MCBs that contain any amount of alumina are excluded from the orders, the Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee said (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1160).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

In a motion for judgment filed Dec. 9, ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC said the Commerce Department had been wrong to apply adverse facts available to it, resulting in a 265.52% countervailing duty rate, for information it provided early in the CVD investigation (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00128).

The Commerce Department excluded exporter Export Packers Company's individually quick frozen cooked garlic cloves from the scope of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on Dec. 9 under protest, Commerce said that while it disagrees with the trade court's reasoning for remanding the case, it's respecting the court's ruling and following "the Court's logic, under protest, to its natural conclusion" and excluding the company's products from the AD order (Export Packers Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00061).