The Court of International Trade on April 21 remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that found a paint sprayer nozzle importer’s products weren’t heat sinks and thus weren't exempt from antidumping duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The department “added a new requirement” to the five-factor test identifying heat sinks, saying that an import can't be dual-purpose, CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif on April 22 granted a motion to dismiss importer Pay Less’ challenge to the International Trade Commission’s affirmative critical circumstances finding regarding Burmese-origin mattresses. The importer never filed an entry of appearance in the underlying injury investigation, and it overall failed to clear the “low bar” required to establish itself as a party to the proceeding, he ruled (Pay Less Here v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 24-00152).

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 on April 21 held to a strict interpretation of the principle of finality of liquidation, ruling that the Court of International Trade can't consider equitable reasons for ordering reliquidation of finally liquidated entries. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said the trade court can't order reliquidation beyond the statutory exceptions, which specifically refer to filing a protest with CBP or a civil action at the trade court. Judge Jimmie Reyna dissented from the ruling, arguing that the majority misapprehends CBP's protest procedures and improperly limits "CIT’s authority to enforce its judgments to a level that is inferior" to the full authority of an Article III court.

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).