The case concerned ICON EV LLC's challenge to interim measures imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) on grounds that the measures violated the company's Fifth Amendment due process rights by being applied without pre-deprivation notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond. ICON sought review under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), while the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that it possessed jurisdiction because ICON alleged imminent irreparable harm from the interim measures that could not be adequately remedied through the delayed EAPA final determination and appeal process. The court reasoned that ICON was not attempting to circumvent the statutory review scheme but was instead raising a constitutional claim regarding the adequacy of procedures for interim actions that risked putting the company out of business before any final evasion determination.
The case involved a challenge by Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review covering diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan for the period May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023. Commerce had selected the shipment date as the date of sale for U.S. sales and applied a differential pricing analysis that included the Cohen's d test to determine whether to use an average-to-transaction comparison method. Following an earlier remand from the court directing reevaluation of these choices, Commerce revised its date of sale approach and replaced the Cohen's d test with a new price difference test. The court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the applicable statute.
The case concerned ICON EV LLC's challenge to interim measures imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Enforce and Protect Act during an ongoing investigation into alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on low-speed personal transportation vehicles imported from China. ICON argued that the measures, which included requirements for live entry and high bonding, were imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating its Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court granted ICON's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of most interim measures until a pre-deprivation hearing could be held, while permitting suspension and extension of liquidation for certain entries. The court found it likely had subject matter jurisdiction and that the injunction factors weighed in ICON's favor due to the potential for irreparable harm and the equities involved.
This case involved the proper tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for imported weekly and monthly planners by Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC. The importer sought classification as calendars under HTSUS heading 4910, while Customs and the government maintained that the items fell under subheading 4820.10.40 as other articles similar to diaries or notebooks. After prior proceedings, including a reversal by the Federal Circuit clarifying that diaries must be prospective only per Mead Corp. v. United States, the Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the planners do not qualify as calendars, diaries, address books, or similar items because they lack provisions for recording past events and thus must be classified as other under 4820.10.40. Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of the United States.
The case involved a challenge by POSCO and the Government of Korea to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in a countervailing duty administrative review of carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Korea for 2021, in which Commerce found that Korea's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and its allocation of extra emissions permits under the K-ETS program constituted countervailable subsidies. Following an initial remand, the court reviewed Commerce's redetermination addressing issues of specificity for the electricity program, whether the extra permits constituted a financial contribution, and whether their allocation was de jure specific. The court sustained Commerce's conclusions that the allocation of permits was a direct transfer of funds and that the electricity program was not de facto specific, but remanded for further analysis of the de facto specificity of the emissions permit allocation under the applicable statutory criteria.
The case concerned whether Export Packers Company Limited’s individually quick frozen cooked garlic cloves were covered by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 1994 antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China. Commerce initially ruled the product fell within the order’s scope, but after the court remanded for further consideration, Commerce determined on remand that the garlic was excluded because it had undergone heat processing. The court sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination, finding it consistent with the order’s plain language excluding garlic prepared or preserved by the addition of heat processing and supported by substantial evidence on the record.