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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 20 issued its mandates in a pair of appeals on three exporters' challenges to the Commerce Department's decision to deny them separate rates in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China (see 2504280020). The court said the exporters' claims on whether the agency can "deem decisive an exporter's failure to establish lack of state control of management selection" without more proof of state control over export activities were precluded by the appellate court's recent holding in Pirelli Tyre v. U.S. The court then said Commerce provided sufficient evidence to back its decision to reject the separate rate applications of all three companies (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

Antidumping duty petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile challenged the Commerce Department's AD investigation on ceramic tile from India, arguing that the agency erred in its collapsing and affiliation analyses regarding the two mandatory respondents. The result of the investigation was a zero percent margin for the respondents, Antiqa Minerals and Win-Tel Ceramics (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).

The U.S. waited too long before seeking to collect on nearly $90,000 of unpaid antidumping duties for two entries in 2017 and 2018, plus $90,000 more in penalty fees, inkjet fabric rolls importer Courtside Market said June 20 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week ordered that two cases on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall be heard on an expedited basis (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th. Cir. # 25-2717).

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

Honey exporters led by Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company asked the Court of International Trade on June 17 to accept their amended complaint and overturn the clerical dismissal of their case challenging the 2021-23 antidumping duty review on raw honey from Vietnam (Ban Me Thuot Honeybee Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00085).

Responding to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification dispute, computer parts importer Atlas Power said the government was trying to raise a new argument that none of Atlas’ entries in question were eligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion because they were entered under a privileged status into a foreign-trade zone (Atlas Power LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

CBP was right to find that Dominican aluminum exporter Kingtom Aluminio relied on forced labor to produce its merchandise, defendant-intervenors led by Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry union said June 16 (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 18 declined to tie the briefing schedule in the appeal on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the briefing schedule in a similar appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, briefing will conclude first at the Federal Circuit, with CAFC set to hear oral argument on July 31 (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).