The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's antidumping and countervailing duty challenge after finding that the claims lack subject-matter jurisdiction at the trade court. Judge Mark Barnett said that Rimco's Eighth Amendment claims could not proceed under Section 1581(a) since they are not contesting the liquidation of the steel wheel entries at issue but instead contest the Commerce Department's actions leading up to the high AD/CVD rates. The judge further ruled that Rimco's claims made under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, cannot stand since the importer could have requested an administrative review of the AD/CVD orders, clearly showing that other avenues of remedy were available.

Importer Charman Manufacturing didn't evade antidumping duties on its malleable cast iron pipe fittings imported from China, CBP said in a July 5 determination. After looking into claims from Matco-Norca that Charman skirted the duties by transshipping the pipe fittings through Indonesia or Singapore, CBP said it didn't have substantial evidence proving these claims. The determination in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation is one of only a handful of times that CBP has come back with a negative evasion finding.

A U.S. appeals court on July 8 affirmed a 2020 District of Columbia court ruling dismissing FedEx’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Industry and Security, saying the shipping company failed to show BIS acted outside its authority. The court also rejected FedEx’s claims that the agency was using the Export Administration Regulations to apply overly burdensome liability standards on carriers and penalize them even when carriers do not have knowledge of violations.

The U.S.'s rationale for its motion to stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade is "remarkable," and essentially concedes that CBP cannot back its evasion finding, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) said in a July 6 brief opposing the stay. The stay motion wants to halt proceedings at CIT so a covered merchandise referral can be issued to the Commerce Department, but the plaintiffs said that such a referral is not possible, the case has been narrowed to record issues and the move signals a concession on the facts (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00192).

The Commerce Department verified that countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. and its U.S. customers did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 8. However, Commerce said that it still believes that the use of adverse facts available over the program is warranted since the Chinese government did not provide the requested information supposedly needed for a full analysis of whether the respondent and its U.S. customers benefitted from the EBCP (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00166).

The Court of International Trade properly held that President Donald Trump violated the law by revoking an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard duties, plaintiff-appellees led by the Solar Energy Industries Association and Invenergy Renewables said in two reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SEIA, in its brief, along with Nextera Energy, argued that the trade court correctly found that "all the tools of statutory construction" show that the law prevents trade-restrictive changes to the safeguard measure (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).

The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se and seeking to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher on a customs broker license exam, appealed the answers to two questions. Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 opinion ruled that the Commerce Department didn't err in using total adverse facts available rates to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from China. While the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce, the court said. The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products over its main supplier's transshipment scheme.

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling June 30 that curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's power to issue regulations intended to counter climate change is unlikely to have ramifications for trade cases at the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but there is a chance some trade actions with a larger scope could be affected, trade lawyers said in recent days.

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion made public July 1 sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce's decision to rely on constructed value based on particular market situation findings for home market sales made through Indonesia's Public Service Obligation program was valid, but that the reliance on CV for non-program sales needed to be further explained. The judge also held that the agency had to further explain its legal authority to make a CV adjustment to account for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) -- tradeable credits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.