The Court of International Trade on Jan. 19 granted a stipulation of facts and joint motion for judgment from importer SGS Sports and the U.S. in a customs spat on the classification of reimported swimsuits. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that, per the stipulation of facts, SGS Sports' entries qualify for duty-free treatment under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.20.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 rejected the Commerce Department's finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said CBP's final evasion determination and administrative review of the final decision contained "multiple errors, both of fact and of law." For instance, CBP pointed to no evidence showing that Columbia received aluminum door thresholds from China, transshipped the thresholds from China through Vietnam or falsely declared the country of origin as Vietnam instead of China. Stanceu added that CBP erroneously relied on a 2019 anti-circumvention proceeding, which applies only to aluminum extrusions exported from Vietnam made from aluminum previously extruded in China.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 5 opinion made public Jan. 16 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results reversing the use of adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners for filing submitted 16 minutes late. The result is a zero percent margin for the company as part of the sixth antidumping review on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's use of Oman Fasteners' quarterly costs and not annual costs in calculating the company's cost of production, as well as its decision not to deduct Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the U.S. price for all of Oman's entries.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 8 opinion rejected a motion from the U.S. seeking to retract the court's public opinion sustaining an affirmative injury finding from the International Trade Commission and to bracket information the government said was confidential. Touting the need for transparency in the court system, Judge Stephen Vaden said that the information the government sought to redact -- certain company names and numerical approximations -- is not confidential because the ITC failed to properly bracket it during litigation or the information is publicly available. The judge noted that neither "administrative agencies nor this Court can hide from scrutiny by censoring information," adding that only "truly confidential" information may be hidden from the public.