The U.S. Court of International Trade issued a published opinion in Tanghenam Elec. Wire & Cable Co. v. United States (2026 CIT 21), presided over by Judge Laroski, under § 1581(c) jurisdiction , the statutory basis for challenging final AD/CVD determinations. The case concerns an electric wire and cable manufacturer contesting a US trade remedy determination. No further factual posture is available from the docket metadata.

Daily Signals alert

Get relevant trade-policy alerts in Daily Trade Signals.

Subscription scopeDaily Trade SignalsThe daily email, with this source context saved for matching.Only AD/CVDFilter future fragments toward this policy instrument.This HS code or caseFollow changes linked to HS 85.

Subscribes you to Daily Trade Signals and stores this source page, selected scope, and a timestamp for alert matching. Unsubscribe anytime. See our privacy policy.

Review Snapshot

Scope: HS 85 / TH / AD/CVD / electric wire and cable
Question: Does this source change alter exposure, timing, or review priority for HS 85 / TH / AD/CVD / electric wire and cable?
Next move: Check HS 85 in Tariffs, then save the scope if this question repeats.

What Changed

Event type: Judicial Review
Restriction: Import · Tariff
Target goods: electric wire and cable
Target countries: TH

Legal / Policy Context

Legal basis

28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)Tariff Act of 1930 (AD/CVD provisions)

Policy instruments

AD/CVD

Practical Takeaways

Check the tagged HS codes in tariff context before treating this as a general market signal.
Use Paths to see adjacent source records, countries, and instruments before escalating this as a standalone change.

Source Trail

CourtListenerPrimary briefing source

Open source