The Court of International Trade granted CBP's voluntary motion for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation over magnesia alumina carbon bricks, in which Fedmet Resources was found to have skirted the order on magnesia carbon bricks from China. CBP requested the voluntary remand, with the consent of Fedmet, to go over key issues raised by the plaintiff, including scope-related and due process arguments (see 2201060035). CBP said it would review the administrative record and potentially provide public versions of certain confidential documents discussed in Fedmet's briefs, possibly alleviating one of the plaintiff's due process concerns by also giving it a chance to provide rebuttal information (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Commerce Department was wrong to allow an antidumping duty respondent's net hedging-related gains to offset its cost of manufacturing in an AD investigation, the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 7 complaint. Commerce's finding that the respondent's hedging gains are "associated" with its purchases of aluminum is insufficient because the record also shows that the hedging contracts are associated with its sales of finished goods, the complaint said (The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00618).

The Court of International Trade, in a Jan. 7 letter to litigants in an antidumping duty case, asked the parties to consult on whether oral argument should be held on issues not currently part of ongoing appeals of key Section 232 questions. The case, brought by respondent and Turkish steel company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi, concerns the Commerce Department's refusal to grant a full duty drawback adjustment and a deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the company's U.S. price (see 2112300044) (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00140). While the Section 232 issue is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097, Judge Jane Restani asked the parties to figure out if litigation can continue without the Section 232 question involved. Restani also pointed to the current petition to the Supreme Court over the validity of some Section 232 tariffs in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold the Commerce Department's finding that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, Shelter Forest and others said in a response brief. Shelter Forest argued that the appellate court should uphold the Court of International Trade's ruling that Shelter Forest's plywood wasn't later-developed merchandise and the company wasn't guilty of evasion (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).

The Court of International Trade granted importer Kehoe Component Sales' consent motion to designate its action as a test case and suspend its two other actions under the test case. All three cases involve the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of the importer's heat blanket controllers. Kehoe said that the resolution of all of the actions could be best served by designating a single test case. The Department of Justice's Peter Mancuso consented to the motion (Kehoe Component Sales v. U.S., CIT #19-00007).

The Court of International Trade assigned six cases over the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to Judge Timothy Reif. The lead plaintiffs in the cases are Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, Evolutions Flooring, Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., and American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring. The complaints concern, among other things, the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce's calculations for the provision of veneer and electricity for less than adequate remuneration, and the agency's decision to use a VAT rate that doesn't reflect what the respondent actually paid.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Department of Justice's opening brief in the PrimeSource appeal to not be in compliance with court rules. In the Jan. 6 notice of non-compliance, the appellate court said that the caption provided on the document doesn't follow the official caption provided by the clerk. DOJ has five business days to fix the filing. The high-profile case concerns the president's ability to expand Section 232 national security tariffs to goods beyond those specified in the Commerce secretary's report to the president at a time that is beyond procedural deadlines. In the brief, DOJ argued that the statutes allows for such a move, in line with the Federal Circuit's opinion in a recent ruling on Section 232 (see 2201040024) (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

CBP wants the Court of International Trade to grant its voluntary remand request to reconsider its final determination in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. The U.S. said the remand would allow CBP to consider the issues raised by plaintiff Fedmet Resources, including scope-related and due process arguments. Fedmet signed off on the remand request while the defendant-intervenor Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee didn't directly oppose it.

The Labor Department unlawfully relied on unverified statements from AT&T officials when denying a unionized group of former AT&T call workers trade adjustment assistance, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 5 opinion. Sending the decision back to Labor a second time, Judge Miller Baker said the department can't claim to have verified email communications with AT&T's in-house counsel based only on AT&T knowing the most about its business operations.

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.