The Court of International Trade issued a pair of opinions on July 15. In one, Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe products from the United Arab Emirates. Stanceu ruled that Commerce's decision to deny plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, a level-of-trade adjustment was based on unsatisfactory analysis "when viewed according to the statutory criteria and the record evidence on the whole."

The Court of International Trade in a July 14 opinion said that the Commerce Department properly rejected countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir's questionnaire response as being untimely because it was filed an hour and 41 minutes late. In the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, counsel for TKT was experiencing computer problems and submitted an extension request an hour and 10 minutes before the filing deadline. Gordon upheld Commerce's rejection of this request, holding that it is not clear why the plaintiffs didn't file an extension earlier and that the respondent didn't put forth a maximum effort to give Commerce the requested information by the deadline.

The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion denied the motion from Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, to dismiss a penalty action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Timothy Reif said that the U.S. properly identified the "who, what, when, where, and how" of Ho's alleged fraud over the alleged illegal importation of high-intensity discharge headlight conversion kits, so personal jurisdiction was established. However, Reif denied in part and granted in part Ho's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the U.S. made insufficient factual allegations over Ho's knowledge and intent to violate customs law based on fraud. The judge did give the U.S. the opportunity to amend its complaint.

The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's lawsuit contesting CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels from China. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since the liquidation of the entries wasn't a protestable decision. The court instead would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) rather than Section 1581(a) and (i) as claimed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could have raised its claims -- including one that says the duties violate the Eighth Amendment -- by requesting a review of the AD/CVD orders, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. can't withdraw from Hongteo's customs case. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kyasov of Rock Trade Law -- must first identify substitute counsel. Pilon and Kyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo didn't pay its outstanding legal fees.

The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong, an individual who took the customs broker license exam, a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se, had appealed two questions on her test to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher. Looking at CBP's defense of the answers to those questions, Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 opinion ruled that the Commerce Department didn't err in using total adverse facts available rates to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping review of steel nails from China. While the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce, the court ruled. The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products over its main supplier's transshipment scheme.

The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey's (Prolamsa) heavy walled rectangular carbon welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment which Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion made public July 1 sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Commerce found that one or more particular market situations existed for exporter Wilmar Trading's home market sales outside of a government-subsidized grant program. In his remand, Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce must either back its PMS finding with evidence or use the price paid for Wilmar's non-program sales to determine normal value in the investigation. Eaton also sent back Commerce's decision to adjust constructed value.

The Court of International Trade in a June 30 opinion upheld the Labor Department's decision to deny a group of former AT&T call center workers trade adjustment assistance, finding the department "(finally) gets it right" after two previous remand orders. In January, the case was remanded for a second time after Judge M. Miller Baker found that DOL failed to address whether AT&T's evidence was "satisfactory without statutory certification." The judge found Labor's answer to this question in its second remand results sufficient, holding the department adequately relied on AT&T's certified information showing it didn't shift call center services to a foreign country.