Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds. Filed in response to the second CIT remands in cases involving two respective scope rulings that found the door thresholds from Columbia and Worldwide Door subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the remand redeterminations, filed under protest, only promise a future “revised scope ruling” if the trade court sustains. “Because it is not the actual scope ruling or determination Commerce plans to issue, it would not be self-effectuating should the court sustain it, and the agency decision that would follow if it were sustained would escape direct judicial review,” CIT said in the two nearly identical opinions.

The Court of International Trade was wrong to consider China's non-market economy status when analyzing whether to grant first sale treatment, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Aug. 11 ruling. The decision overturns and remands a 2021 CIT ruling that said that first sale treatment shouldn't apply for cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through a Chinese middleman because China is a NME.

The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in the exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained.

The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping review on activated carbon from China back to the Commerce Department for reconsideration or explanation. While CIT sustained five of the seven surrogate selections at issue in the case, it found the agency failed to explain its surrogate value selection of a dataset for carbonized material and its pick of a company for determining surrogate financial ratios.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over when the date that customs fraud was discovered for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had ran out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments. Choe-Groves ordered all parties to file a joint proposed pre-trial order.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 2 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's determination in an antidumping investigation of biodiesel from Argentina. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment" and deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. The appellate court also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first clear indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from the Commerce Department liquidation instructions, which were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll ruled that the Court of International Trade was right to find in a separate case, which put in place the injunction on the 11 entries under dispute in the present action, didn't unambiguously end the injunction, resulting in a finding that CBP timely liquidated the entries. The judges further held that while one of the entries should have been labeled as being reliquidated because it was deemed liquidated by law, this error was harmless.

The Court of International Trade in a July 25 opinion ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, redenominating the counterclaim seeking a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for various decorative items as a defense. Adopting the court's recent decision in a separate customs case, Judge Gary Katzmann held that there is no statutory basis for the U.S. to file a counterclaim. However, the judge granted the U.S.' bid to amend its answer to Second Nature's complaint to incorporate the arguments found in its counterclaim, finding the plaintiff's arguments unconvincing. The importer said the amendment is barred by the finality of liquidation, illegal on Constitutional grounds and unreasonably prejudicial.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.' counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to toss the counterclaim as moot. The counterclaim sought to reclassify Cyber Powers' cable imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim.