The Court of International Trade ruled April 21 almost completely in favor of sink importer R.H. Peterson, finding that most of the disputed components for, and all of the value added to, the importer’s sinks shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the U.S. was allowed in this instance to adopt a position contrary to CBP’s during the administrative proceeding. She also refused to award attorneys fees, saying the importer hadn’t provided an adequate explanation as to why the government’s litigation position had been unjustified (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled April 21 that the Commerce Department had been allowed to adjust wind tower exporter Dongkuk S&C Co.’s steel plate input costs, saying the department reasonably found price fluctuations unrelated to an input's physical characteristics. The court also upheld Commerce’s surrogate selection of SeAH Steel Holdings Corporation over SeAH Steel as reasonable because the former could offer data covering the entire period of investigation (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).

The Court of International Trade partly granted vehicle accessories importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ request for reconsideration of an Oct. 7 decision. CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said she had conducted a “traditional eo nomine versus principal use analysis” in her decision, but that Keystone had actually argued that the United States Trade Representative had outlined a “new legal standard” for applying the relevant Section 301 tariff exclusion (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).

The Court of International Trade on April 18 sustained the International Trade Commission's preliminary negative injury determination on aluminum extrusions from the Dominican Republic. Judge Lisa Wang rejected all three of the petitioners' claims, which challenged the ITC's findings that subject imports were negligible, there was "no likelihood of contrary evidence to arise in the final phase which would warrant a non-negligibility determination," and imports from the Dominican Republic don't have the potential to exceed the negligibility threshold in the "imminent future."

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, which was initially opened in 1996. After the agency calculated AD margins for the seven respondents from the original 1995-96 investigation period on remand, a group of intervenors, led by NS Brands, challenged Commerce's decision not to find a changed circumstance or initiate new shipper reviews for the intervenors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that they could have been brought under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, instead of under the plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim under Section 1581(c). The judge also found that the intervenors lacked standing to sue.

The Court of International Trade on April 15 denied importer Under the Weather's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods." Judge Timothy Reif said the proposed amended complaint "was filed after undue delay and is futile." The importer received duty-free treatment for the pods from 2010-18, but that ultimately ended in 2020 following an HQ ruling from CBP. The trade court previously rejected a claim from Under the Weather that CBP had to allow for a notice-and-comment period with the HQ ruling, since the agency previously accorded the pods a given tariff treatment. Under the Weather then tried to amend its complaint to newly cite two alleged examinations of the pods by CBP. Reif rejected the motion, finding that the importer waited too long to raise the issue and that the issue would be futile, since it "would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department’s final determination in its review of chlorinated isocyanurate from China. He affirmed the agency's consideration of Romania as a potential surrogate, saying that a delay in the submission of Romania as a surrogate hadn’t rendered that submission untimely. He also sustained Commerce’s usual practice with regard to surrogate selection, citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and its decision to exclude Mexico as a potential surrogate. But he remanded Commerce's finding that calcium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite are “comparable” to chlorinated isos, saying clorinated isos aren’t “industrial commodity chemicals” (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).

A group of five companies filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The complaint, drafted by the conservative Liberty Justice Center, says President Donald Trump's use of IEEPA to impose "reciprocal" tariffs "exceeds his statutory authority." The lawsuit adds that even if IEEPA grants this authority, it amounts to an "unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority." The lawsuit is the third of its kind to challenge the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs but is the first to be filed at the trade court.

The Court of International Trade on April 10 sent back the Commerce Department's scope ruling excluding calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping duty orders on glycine from India, Japan and Thailand and the countervailing duty orders on glycine from India and China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce acted "unreasonably" by failing to analyze whether the glycinate is a form of crude or technical glycine, notwithstanding the agency's finding that the glycinate is a precursor of dried crystaline glycine. Laroski also said the agency acted "unreasonably" in failing to consider information in the scope ruling application and an International Trade Commission report undermining its conclusion.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions on April 3 remanded both the 2019 and 2020 reviews of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In both decisions, Judge Timothy Reif sent back the Commerce Department's use of UN Comtrade data in setting a benchmark price in assessing the provision of plywood for less than adequate remuneration and the agency's use of adverse facts available to find that certain input suppliers are government "authorities." On the second point, Reif said Commerce appropriately found that the Chinese government's submissions were insufficient but that the agency didn't give the Chinese government proper notice or opportunity to remedy these deficiencies. In the 2019 review, Reif also remanded Commerce's benchmark price for veeners, though the judge sustained the benchmark for inland freight and use of AFA to find use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.