The Court of International Trade on May 16 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's circumvention determinations on solar cells made by Trina Solar Science & Technology, Canadian Solar International and BYD. On the findings that Trina and Canadian Solar circumvented the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells via Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce permissibly placed dispositive weight on the amount invested into research and development in the companies' Thailand facilities to show that the operations in these facilities were "minor or insignificant." Baker also sustained the agency's finding that BYD circumvented the orders via Cambodia, similarly upholding Commerce's reliance on the level of R&D into BYD's Cambodia facilities.

The Court of International Trade on May 15 held that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court rulings distinguishes "importation" and "entry." The judge added that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided the five-year period to make a drawback claim runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. As a result, the court dismissed importer King Maker Marketing's case challenging CBP's rejection of its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims for being untimely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 types of frozen fruit mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, which covers "other" frozen fruit. Judges Todd Hughes, Leonard Stark and Robert Schroeder, sitting by designation from a Texas court, held that nine types of mixtures that contain fruits and vegetables properly fit under heading 0811 pursuant to GRI 3(b), which considers which component of a mixture gives it its "essential character," since the mixtures' fruit gave the product its essential character. The appeals court said subheading 0811.90.80 was proper to cover all 14 mixture types, though it disagreed with the trade court that "other" means "none of the above," writing instead that it means "none of the preceding categories."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 issued a pair of decisions sustaining the Commerce Department's 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In the 2018-19 review, Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen upheld Commerce's surrogate value pick for coal-based carbonized material, an input of activated carbon. In the 2019-20 review, the judges upheld the agency's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the surrogate value selections for carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight.

The Court of International Trade on May 8 held that CBP can't unilaterally reliquidate entries erroneously liquidated in violation of a suspension order from the court. Judge Gary Katzmann said CBP can't avoid the court's role in disturbing the finality of liquidation and ordering equitable relief. The judge went on to deny this equitable relief to the government, which inadvertently liquidated 174 entries of solar panels without applicable Section 201 safeguard duties. Katzmann declined to extend such relief to CBP on the basis that the agency inflicted the harm itself and failed to show it was adequately diligent in preventing the error.

The Court of International Trade on May 6 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India. After two remands for Commerce's decision to use a questionnaire in lieu of onsite verification, the agency conducted an in-person verification of respondent Shakti Forge Industries' facilities in India. Judge Stephen Vaden declared the procedural claims "vanquished," then sustained the agency's reliance on Shakti's reported costs. The judge noted that Commerce didn't find a "single inaccuracy" in the respondent's reporting and reasonably accepted the exporter's explanation of its finishing processes to be reasonable.

The Court of International Trade on May 6 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Russia. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's benchmark calculations for the provision of phosphate rock mining rights for less than adequate remuneration and natural gas for LTAR programs. The judge said Commerce improperly excluded data on phosphate rock taken from sedimentary reserves and erred in using sales of natural gas from Kazakhstan to Russia. However, Restani sustained the use of data only from 2021 to calculate the mining rights subsidy, calculation of respondent JSC Apatit's phosphate rock cost of sales plus profit, and use of adverse facts available to find that Apatit's natural gas suppliers were government authorities.

Fish oil ethyl ester concentrates imported by BASF are "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 and not food preparations under heading 2106, the Court of International Trade held on May 2. Judge Joseph Laroski said the concentrates are extracts of fish oil, since they maintain many key characteristics of the fish oil, and that fish oil is fish for purposes of the HTS heading. In granting BASF its preferred HTS classification, Laroski sidestepped the issue of whether the U.S. could seek a classification different from the one chosen by CBP through a counterclaim at the trade court.

The Court of International Trade ruled April 29 that importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks, which chemically convert nitrous oxide from industrial pollutant emitters into nitrogen and water, were filters, not “other” catalytic reactors. It acknowledged that Mitsubishi had defined a Section 301 exclusion for “other” catalytic reactors based on the products, but said the importer had been on notice that its products might not be covered by the language of the exclusion because the language of the exclusions themselves, not product descriptions contained in the exclusion requests, define what's subject to the exclusions (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of decisions on April 28 upheld the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate decisions in the 2012-13 and 2014-15 reviews of the AD order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes held that the companies' claims regarding whether Commerce could "deem decisive an exporter’s failure to establish lack of state control of management selection," without more proof of state control over export activities, were precluded by the court's recent decision in Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S. In Pirelli, the court directly answered this question and said the agency could consider state control of management selection without tying it to export activities. The judges then turned to the record and said Commerce's decision to reject the separate rate bids for all three companies was backed by substantial evidence.