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.

The Court of International Trade on April 1 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco. Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected Commerce's finding that Morocco's program for relief from tax fines and penalties is specific to OCP. The judge sustained the remaining issues in the case, which included Commerce's decision not to find a benefit from the provision of mining rights by the Moroccan government, its decision not to countervail the provision of port services, its use of adverse facts available for respondent OCP's failure to report a payroll tax refund, and its ability to request information from OCP on unspecified "other benefits" it received.

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China.

The Court of International Trade on March 27 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Timothy Reif upheld Commerce's calculation of a benchmark price for plywood using a weighted average of U.N. Comtrade and International Tropical Timber Organization data, the agency's inclusion of respondents' backboard purchases in the calculation of a benefit from the provision of veneers for less than adequate remuneration, and Commerce's decision to add a 17% value-added tax rate to the benchmark price for various inputs. Reif also upheld the use of adverse facts available against respondent Baroque Timber's use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though he granted the government's voluntary remand request to reconsider the use of such facts against respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., since the company submitted non-use certifications for all of its U.S. buyers.

The Court of International Trade on March 27 held that the International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses" in injury proceedings is "unlawful." Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice is "inconsistent with statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense." The judge said the practice leads to treating "publicly available information as confidential," treating the same information inconsistently based only on how the ITC obtained it, and impermissibly designating information as confidential unilaterally. Vaden went through various information dubbed confidential in an injury proceeding on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, finding that all but one piece of it was improperly redacted.

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann on March 27 denied a motion to dismiss a U.S. claim against German thermal paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper, for nearly $200 million in duties unpaid by the now-defunct Papierfabrik August Koehler. He said that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over the case because Koehler Oberkirch is the successor-in-interest of Papierfabrik August Koehler; meanwhile, Koehler Paper, due to the U.S. fraud allegation, is the successor-in-interest of Koehler Oberkirch (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case. The judge held that the harms suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of CBP's actions "are not time-sensitive harms that will become irremediable in the near future," that the harms suffered are not "extraordinary" and that it's not clear that a speedy end of the case serves the public interest.

The Court of International Trade on March 25 granted three wildlife advocacy groups' voluntary dismissal of a case seeking to compel the Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security departments to ban fish from fisheries in nine nations for failing to meet U.S. standards. The advocacy groups settled the matter with the agencies, laying out a four-phase plan that will see the National Marine Fisheries Service issue comparability findings for the fisheries (see 2501170058). Judge Gary Katzmann granted the dismissal, noting that the court retains jurisdiction to oversee compliance with the agreement.

The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's third remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. The agency had again refused to investigate the provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce reasonably laid out the evidence that petitioner Nucor Corp. should have provided to "justify a new subsidy investigation of this subset of the broader electricity pricing scheme."

The Court of International Trade on March 18 held that CBP is not entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers who cancel their tickets and who never receive a refund or fail to use a travel credit. Judge Gary Katzmann sided with Southwest Airlines on the issue, first finding that CBP isn't entitled to the fee under the statute, 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a), where no passenger arrives in the U.S. and where the agency didn't provide any customs services. The judge also held that CBP's Guidance Letters on the topic can't usurp the statute and that Southwest doesn't hold the fees in a "constructive trust" for CBP, since the agency has "no equitable interest in a fee where no passenger travels."