Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2025. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Importer Amoena USA filed a pair of supplemental briefs at the Court of International Trade in its customs case on the classification of its mastectomy brassieres (Amoena USA v. United States, CIT # 20-00100).
The Commerce Department erred by including manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos' products within the scope of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe from Mexico and by collapsing respondent Maquilacero and Tecnicas, its affiliate, in the 2022-23 administrative review of the order, Maquilacero and Tecnicas argued in a motion for judgment (Maquilacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).
The U.S. voluntarily dismissed one of its appeals concerning a scope proceeding on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China, though the dismissal doesn't affect the government's related appeal on the same proceeding (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. #'s 26-1160, 26-1245).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 23 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after the court granted the government's motion for a voluntary remand to reconsider its differential pricing analysis, which is used to identify "masked" dumping. The U.S. asked for the remand after CAFC's rulings in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S., in which the court largely invalidated the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis. While the court held oral argument on whether a voluntary remand was needed, due to opposition from exporter PT Enterprise, the court ultimately found remand to be proper given that Commerce has "materially changed the policy directly at issue in the case" (see 2512030015). In response to Stupp and Marmen, Commerce has adopted a new "price differences test" to detect masked dumping (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The Court of International Trade did not err in classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover imported by Cozy Comfort, as a pullover of Harmonized Tariff Schedule 6110 and not a blanket of heading 6301, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 19 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
Attorneys at Grunfeld Desiderio filed an application for a temporary restraining order last week against the liquidation of entries in various cases that were assessed tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In its response filed on Dec. 16, the U.S. repeatedly cited the Court of International Trade's recent decision to deny an injunction against liquidation in other cases seeking IEEPA tariff refunds on the grounds that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of finally liquidated entries in Section 1581(i) cases (see 2512150029) (Strato Technology Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00322).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade denied a group of importers' motion for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of their entries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on the basis that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of the entries if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for ocean freight charges and its valuation of minor fabricated components in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld the agency's decisions as reasonable after initially remanding both selections.