The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 vacated and remanded the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings regarding New Zealand's "West coast, North Island multi-species set-net and trawl fisheries" in a suit from conservation group Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ seeking an import ban on fish from these fisheries. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that NMFS' findings are "arbitrary and capricious" and that the agency's decision memorandum is a "cursory seven-page document that is replete with conclusory statements and cites minimal record evidence." However, the judge stopped short of ordering NMFS to implement an import ban, merely leaving this possibility on the table should the agency continue to issue an unsupported conclusion.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on Aug. 22 vacated the Commerce Department’s pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia -- in place until June 6, 2024 -- after a finding that the countries' exporters were circumventing an antidumping duty on solar cells from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif ruled Aug. 21 that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving’s 2022 case challenging the cash deposit rate assigned to certain entries should have been brought to a binational panel under 1581(c), not to the trade court under 1581(i). He said that the “true nature” of the exporter’s case was a challenge to a 2019 antidumping duty review’s results. His analysis, he said, was identical to the analysis offered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when it upheld Reif’s dismissal of the exporter’s prior case (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 22-00256).

In a decision made public Aug. 19, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly again said the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the South Korean steel industry’s use of a countrywide electricity program lacked a rational explanation. Remanding the finding again, she told Commerce to apply the disproportionality analysis she defined in her first remand order (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Aug. 19 the Commerce Department’s rejection of an exporter’s response to a separate rate questionnaire the department had already rescinded, having realized it had been issued in error. After the rejection, the exporter, Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer, received the China-wide rate for the 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese-origin aluminum wire and cable. In the nine-page opinion, CAFC explained that the questionnaire was rescinded because Jin Tiong failed to file a timely separate rate application (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

In an opinion made public Aug. 19, Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett affirmed the Commerce Department's decision to reject a separate rate application submitted by solar cell exporter Yingli Energy (China). He observed that the exporter's majority shareholder was a Chinese government agency. He also upheld Commerce's rebuttable presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are government-controlled (Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).

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.