The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion again ruled it's legal for importer Keirton USA to possess and import its merchandise, deemed "drug paraphernalia" federally, into Washington state. Building on the Eteros decision at CIT that declared the same thing, Judge Claire Kelly said the state's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to find the term "authorization" applies to Washington state law.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 5 opinion made public Oct. 12 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett held that Commerce must reconsider or further explain its decision not to investigate off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration and its decision not to treat respondent POSCO's affiliate POSCO Plantec as a cross-owned input supplier for the supply of scrap.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion found that CBP correctly classified two types of net wraps both used to wrap bales of harvested crops. The case was brought by RKW Klerks to contest CBP's classification of the wraps as synthetic "warp knit fabrics" classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. RKW Clerks had said they are instead "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery" under subheading 8433.90.50.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 23 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case over the antidumping duty investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. Commerce must further explain and reconsider its finding as to whether the "likely selling price" of non-prime plate listed in plaintiff AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books is the best available information for evaluating the cost of production, Judge Leo Gordon held.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 23 opinion held that the Commerce Department properly used total adverse facts available over antidumping respondent Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial's failure to report all its factors of production data on a control number-specific basis. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman and Kara Stoll ruled that the CONNUM-specific reporting requirement is an interpretive rule and not a legislative one requiring a notice-and-comment period, and that Pioneer failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not maintaining adequate records and not developing a proper reporting methodology.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 22 opinion granted exporter Dong-A-Steel's right to intervene as a plaintiff-intervenor in an antidumping challenge brought by Histeel. Both Dong-A and Histeel participated in the administrative review of the AD duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea as mandatory respondents. The U.S. opposed Dong-A's proposed intervention on the grounds that it has not shown injury in fact, causation and redressability, since it will not suffer any harm if Histeel's margin is upheld. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Dong-A had "piggyback" standing because it and Histeel seek the same relief, and has intervention "as of right" because it is "an interested party who was a party to the proceeding."

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 22 opinion denied plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's motion to stay its countervailing duty review challenge pending resolution of a case over the previous review of the same CVD order. Kaptan's case concerns the 2019 administrative review of the CVD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said the stay would not promote judicial economy because the pending cases are before CIT and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, he said Kaptan has not put forth any "pressing need" for a stay.

The Court of International Trade ruled Sept. 21 that importer Eteros Technologies USA is legally allowed to import goods federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" because Washington state legalized the delivery, possession and manufacture of marijuana-related drug paraphernalia. Judge Gary Katzmann found Eteros is authorized to import motor frame assemblies used to create marijuana harvesting units under the federal exemption section of the Controlled Substances Act. As such, the U.S. cannot legally seize or forfeit Eteros' imports, Katzmann said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 order denied a motion from John Liu and GL Paper Distribution, defendants in a Section 592 penalty case, to strike a portion of the complaint. Liu had moved to strike elements of the complaint he deemed to not be relevant to the imports at issue. Judge Jane Restani ruled that striking these parts of the complaint would be "premature," since the matter of relevancy is a "question of evidence" and not meant to be subject to a motion to strike. Liu also said that because the contested elements of the complaint are "irrelevant," they are prejudicial and could mislead. However, Restani ruled that if Liu is not involved with the companies he says are irrelevant to the case, then this should be proven through evidence and not excluded through a motion to strike.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of facts otherwise available for a South Korean port usage rights program, resulting in a de minimis rate for respondent Hyundai Steel. Though Hyundai continued to argue against Commerce's decision to countervail the program, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that consideration of the benefit finding "would have no practical significance and is mooted."