The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 held that seven different types of Target General Merchandise's LED lamps are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405, which provides for lamps and lighting fittings "having a permanently fixed light source" not specified anywhere in the tariff schedule. Judge Lisa Wang said the LED lamps don't qualify for classification under heading 8543, since goods under chapter 85 are "generally limited to electrical lamps that are components within equipment, rather than those used independently in the home." The judge then said the products, which consist of "various string light models," specifically qualify for subheading 9405.30.00, which provides for lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet from China fits under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with Valeo that the orders "unambiguously" exclude Valeo's aluminum sheet, finding the phrase "as designated by the Aluminum Association" to be ambiguous. The judges also disagreed with Valeo's claim that its T-series aluminum sheet falls outside the scope of the orders, since it's heat-treated. The court also held that Commerce wasn't required to revoke the suspension instructions it had issued to CBP when it started the scope inquiry after the Court of International Trade remanded the proceeding for the agency to undertake a (k)(2) analysis.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce's selection of Thai steel shelving maker PNS Manufacturing's financial statements to determine constructed value and the agency's decision to use the date of invoice as the date of sale for respondent Siam Metal's U.S. sales. The judge also sustained Commerce's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal's actual costs as recorded in their financial accounting systems as the companies' total cost of manufacturing.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sent back the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's finding that the Korean government's provision of subsidized electricity is de facto specific, faulting the agency for grouping the steel industry with two unrelated industries to assess whether the industries predominantly used electricity. The judge also warned against countervailing the provision of electricity, which is of the type of general subsidy barred from being countervailed under the CVD statute. Restani also sent back the decision to countervail the allocation of additional carbon emissions credits under the Korean cap and trade program. Restani rejected the findings that the extra credits are a "financial contribution" and are de jure specific.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company for its success at the trade court regarding the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), which says CIT will hear cases arising out of a "law of the United States providing for" various trade-related actions. The judge held that Eteros' allegations don't arise out of any trade-related U.S. laws. Katzmann also held that no relief is needed to effectuate the trade court's prior ruling in favor of Eteros, since no party disputes that CBP complied with CIT's "specific directive" to release Eteros' marijuana trimmers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 4 held that the Commerce Department's rejection of a questionnaire submission by countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir that was one hour and 41 minutes late was an abuse of discretion. Judges Timothy Dyk and Sharon Prost said that future courts reviewing whether Commerce "abused its discretion by rejecting a submission as untimely" shall consider the "remedial-not-punitive purpose" of antidumping and countervailing duty laws, the burden on Commerce that stems from the untimely submission, whether any finality concerns are implicated by accepting the documents and the "late-filing party's efforts" and its "reasons for the submission's untimeliness." Applying those factors, Dyk and Prost said Commerce clearly abused its discretion in deciding not to accept Tau-Ken's late submission, which led to a 160% adverse facts available rate. Judge Todd Hughes dissented from the decision, declaring that "Commerce has extensive authority to enforce its own deadlines."

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Jindal Poly's affiliate questionnaire response as untimely in the countervailing duty administrative review on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India for the 2021 review period. Judge Mark Barnett held that the rejection of the submission was an "abuse of discretion," finding that the agency failed to adequately consider various facts, including the "early stage of the proceeding," the selection of Jindal for "individual examination only after requests for review of all other subject companies" were withdrawn and whether "accuracy consideration" outweighed the "burden on the agency."

The Court of International Trade on July 31 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's scope ruling on importer School Specialty's No. 2 pencils made in the Philippines with Chinese-origin raw material inputs. Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce failed to discuss how it balanced its various findings after conducting a "substantial transformation" analysis and looking at where the pencil's "essential component" was made. However, Baker individually sustained Commerce's conclusions regarding the different factors found in these analyses.

The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the "indefiniteness of the threatened action," which Trump said will take effect on Aug. 1, "dooms" the importers' "request for emergency relief in the form of a TRO." The judge said neither Trump nor any agency "has taken final action that is subject to judicial review by this Court."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey in which the agency's decision to use Turkish lira to value respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's home-market sales. While Habas said Commerce had to follow its precedent by using the respondent's dollar-denominated sales, Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce had no such obligation, since Habas failed to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices." The judges also rejected the respondent's claim that the use of the lira-denominated prices distorted the AD margin calculation, finding that Commerce properly relied on Habas' reported lira values, which were the only reliable prices.