Trade decisions of the U.S. CIT and CAFC: challenges to the legality of tariff measures, judicial review of AD/CVD determinations, refunds and retroactive application, and what a decision means for goods in transit and entries already made. Canadian decisions are under "CITT & Canadian Federal Courts".
The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's second remand redetermination in the final scope ruling on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, holding that rough fittings produced in China that underwent sizing/reforming or heat- or cold-treating and finishing in Vietnam fall within the antidumping duty order. The ruling covers the two Vietnam production scenarios in the covered merchandise referral, EAPA Consolidated Case Number 7335 (Remand Number 7717), involving Norca Industrial Company, LLC and International Piping & Procurement Group, LP. The court's decision is Slip Op. 26-83 in Consol. Court No. 23-00231, dated July 29, 2026.
Why it matters: Entries of Chinese-origin rough carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings that underwent sizing/reforming or heat- or cold-treating and finishing in Vietnam are within the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China.
The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand redetermination in the 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, Slip Op. 26-82, Consol. Court No. 23-00187. The remand followed the CAFC's decision in Marmen III, 134 F.4th 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2025), which vacated Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test; Commerce replaced it with a price difference test as the first step of its differential pricing analysis.
Why it matters: The revised rates apply to the 2021 review of certain softwood lumber products from Canada, with Canfor at 5.25%, West Fraser at 7.06% and non-selected companies at 6.26%.
The U.S. Court of International Trade remanded Commerce's final affirmative antidumping duty determination on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from Mexico, covering the July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 period of investigation, in Galvasid S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-80, Court Nos. 25-00235 and 26-00825. The court held that Galvasid's challenge, filed October 28, 2025, was timely under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(3)(A)(i) because no binational panel review was requested, and dismissed the later complaint in Court No. 26-00825. Commerce had assigned Galvasid a 24.05% weighted-average dumping margin using partial facts available with an adverse inference, amended to 24.09% after a ministerial error correction.
The U.S. Court of International Trade remanded Commerce's final determination and antidumping duty order in the 2024 investigation of paper plates from China, in Fuzhou Hengli Paper Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-59, Court No. 25-00064, dated June 11, 2026. The court held that Commerce's application of total adverse facts available, which produced a 515.40% dumping margin for Fuzhou, was not supported by substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law. The case concerns the Final Determination published at 90 Fed. Reg. 8,271 (Jan. 28, 2025), covering certain paper plates from China, Thailand and Vietnam.
The U.S. Court of International Trade held in Slip Op. 26-55, issued May 26, 2026, that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) over ICON EV LLC's Fifth Amendment due process challenge to interim measures CBP imposed under the Enforce and Protect Act, and denied the government's motion to dismiss. The case, Court No. 26-02759, concerns interim measures CBP imposed on April 6, 2026 in EAPA Cons. Case 8247, requiring an over-500% duty rate and live entry cash deposits on ICON's imports of low-speed personal transportation vehicles from China. The court had granted ICON a preliminary injunction on April 24, 2026, effective April 30, 2026.
Why it matters: The ruling keeps ICON's constitutional challenge and its preliminary injunction in place while CBP's EAPA investigation into evasion of the LSPTV antidumping and countervailing duty orders continues.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, in Slip Op. 26-56, denied Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained in full Commerce's final affirmative anticircumvention determination on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Mexico, Court No. 24-00212. The inquiry, initiated July 31, 2023, covered high carbon steel wire from Mexico assembled or completed into PC strand in the United States during January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. The court rejected Deacero's challenges to Commerce's production comparison methodology, its minor-or-insignificant processing analysis under section 781(a)(2), and its treatment of patterns of trade.
The U.S. Court of International Trade denied the government's motion to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal in Washington v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-53, Court Nos. 26-01472-3JP and 26-01606-3JP.
Why it matters: The injunction covers only the State of Washington and its instrumentalities, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc., and the Federal Circuit's administrative stay temporarily suspends the judgment and injunction until further notice.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, in Slip Op. 26-47, granted summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction for The State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc. against duties imposed under Proclamation No. 11012, which invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2312, to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent ad valorem. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims of the remaining non-importer plaintiffs, including The State of Oregon and 21 other states and officials, for lack of standing, and denied as moot the plaintiffs' alternative motions for a preliminary injunction.
Why it matters: The injunction covers only The State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc.; the other state and gubernatorial plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of standing.
The U.S. Court of International Trade granted ICON EV LLC a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on April 24, 2026, in Court No. 26-02759, enjoining CBP's interim measures imposed under the Enforce and Protect Act during its EAPA investigation, EAPA Cons. Case 8247, into alleged evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on low-speed personal transportation vehicles from China. CBP had imposed the measures on April 6, 2026, finding reasonable suspicion of evasion by misclassification and transshipment through Vietnam, including suspension and extension of liquidation and a live-entry requirement at the 519.23 percent ad valorem all-others AD/CVD cash-deposit rate.
Why it matters: Importers of Chinese-origin low-speed personal transportation vehicles and parts facing EAPA interim measures can look to this ruling on CBP's live-entry and cash-deposit requirements pending the investigation.
The U.S. Court of International Trade held in Slip Op. 26-41, Court No. 21-00200, that Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s eight models of cables are properly classified under subheading 8544.42.90, HTSUS, and subheading 9903.88.03, HTSUS, but that the government is not entitled to collect the additional 2.6 percent ad valorem duty that would normally be due under subheading 8544.42.90.
In Slip Op. 26-39, Court No. 24-00155, the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's final scope determination for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from the People's Republic of China as applied to further processing in Malaysia, denying ACProducts, Inc. and related plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the agency record. Commerce found that Scenario 1, 2 and 3 cabinets produced in China and combined in Malaysia with Malaysian-made cabinet parts are Chinese in origin and covered by the orders, while Scenario 4 cabinets containing a Chinese toe kick and otherwise Malaysian parts are third-country in origin and not covered.
Why it matters: Importers of wooden cabinets and vanities from Malaysia must treat Scenario 1, 2 and 3 cabinets made with Chinese components as Chinese-origin goods subject to the AD/CVD orders, while Scenario 4 cabinets are outside the scope.
The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's final scope determination covering wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from China, holding that cabinets produced in China and combined in Vietnam with Vietnamese-made wooden parts remain Chinese in origin and within the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Cabinets containing a Chinese-made wooden toe kick with all other wooden parts produced in Vietnam are third-country in origin and outside the orders. Judge Leo M. Gordon issued the opinion in Court No. 24-00156, Slip Op. 26-40, dated April 21, 2026, denying the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the agency record.