The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction on a petition to ban imports of cocoa from Ivory Coast. Judge Claire Kelly said the group hasn't shown that CBP's failure to respond to the petition "harmed a core business or diminished any asset." Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the judge said resources spent trying to compel the agency to act were expenses for advocacy, which can't establish standing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 held that it's not unreasonable for the Commerce Department to set the all-others rate for non-individually examined respondents in an antidumping proceeding by using only total adverse facts available rates assigned to the mandatory respondents. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said there's no burden on Commerce to show that using only AFA is reasonable, finding instead that the burden is on the agency to "justify a departure from the expected method," not to "justify its use." Judge Timothy Dyk filed a partial dissent, finding that just because the use of AFA is "expected" doesn't make it "reasonable." As a result, Dyk said Commerce must show that the sole use of AFA in setting the all-others rate is reasonable.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate hot-rolled steel imports from Australia with other countries' goods when conducting a five-year sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected exporter BlueScope Steel's claim that the ITC had established a past practice of considering U.S. investments by foreign producers in cumulation analyses. The court held that the cumulation decision was backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade on July 30 sustained the Commerce Department's first review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce appropriately decided on remand to remove exporter Nagase's compensation for payment expenses from the company's general and administrative expense ratio. Vaden also ruled that Nagase failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding its request that Commerce reconsider the assessment rate.

The Court of International Trade on July 26 remanded the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates. After finding that exporters led by respondent Universal Tube and Plastic Industries didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding arguments on Commerce's consideration of alternative time periods in the Cohen's d test, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the agency's consideration of the time periods in the d test, which is used to detect "masked" dumping.

The Court of International Trade on July 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said on remand that Commerce properly slashed exporter Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited's AD margin to zero percent from a 154.07% adverse facts available rate. The judge also sustained the agency's collapsing analysis, which said Deosen Biochemical shouldn't be collapsed with Deosen Biochemcial (Ordos) since Deosen Biochemical made no shipments during the review period. As a result, Deosen Biochemical's review under the AD order was rescinded.

The Court of International Trade in a July 17 decision made public July 25 remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on Dutch mushrooms. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly declined to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Prochamp but didn't adequately support its decision to use Germany as the comparison market. Baker said it was unclear how many of Prochamp's German sales were for consumption in Germany.

The Court of International Trade in a July 15 decision made public July 26 denied customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Judge Claire Kelly said Seko's claims are "either moot or speculative" because it has been "conditionally reinstated" into the programs and has received a "detailed explanation" of its violation of the programs. The judge added that Seko's evidence refers to "speculative harm at best," and that harm to its reputation as a result of the suspensions isn't enough to warrant injunctive relief.

The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a suit on CBP's liquidation of tire entries from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The importer entered tires made by exporters Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co. and Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., subject to a 64.57% AD rate. In a separate case, the trade court enjoined the liquidation of certain tire entries made by the two exporters but not imports from Acquisition 362 because it wasn't a party to the case. The importer said CBP illicitly failed to enjoin the liquidation of its entries. Judge Mark Barnett said CBP didn't make a "protestable decision" in liquidating Acquisition 362's goods and that the agency didn't have the authority to extend to the importer's entries based on the court's order in the separate case.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif released a pair of opinions July 22 dismissing two of a hot-rolled steel flat product exporter's three cases. One, in which Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari sought a sunset review of an AD investigation, was made moot by a subsequent sunset review; the other was incorrectly brought under Section 1581(i) instead of under Section 1581(c), even if that would have required the exporter to file based on “speculation,” the judge said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-003549, -50).