Supporting the Commerce Department’s reluctant reversal on remand finding that bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. weren’t covered by antidumping duties or countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks, (see 2503130022), the U.S. said July 3 that a petitioner’s opposition really seeks just to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its decision (Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 8 decision sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India.

In July 2 oral argument for a case on antidumping duty and countervailing duty injury investigations on freight rail couplers, parties before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann wrestled with what one attorney described as a truly novel issue: whether it was lawful of the International Trade Commission to initiate an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).

The Commerce Department improperly found that U.S. company Aloha Pencil didn't qualify as a domestic manufacturer, producer or wholesaler, which led to the recission of the 2023-24 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, Aloha argued in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).

Animal feed additive importer Zoetis’ products were properly classified by CBP as feed additives, not antibiotics, the U.S. said in a June 30 brief (Zoetis Services, v. United States, CIT # 22-00056).

Importer Ansell Healthcare Products brought a July 3 complaint against the United States saying that, after a “series of clerical errors,” it paid almost $2.4 million in duties and fees on three reconciliation entries when it should have only paid $461.01 (Ansell Healthcare Products v. United States, CIT # 20-003922).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 3 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case concerning the Commerce Department's decision to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel's collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. The court upheld the Court of International Trade's decision sustaining Commerce's decision without an opinion (see 2505120018). At issue was Hyundai's contract with the South Korean government to build the Incheon North Harbor port, ownership of which reverted back to the government after construction was complete but with Hyundai receiving the right to collect fees from third-party users of the port as payment. At oral argument, the CAFC judges pressed Hyundai on whether the issue was settled in the court's 1999 ruling in AK Steel v. U.S., which upheld the decision to countervail exporter POSCO's exemptions from dockyard fees and collection of third-party fees at the Kwangyang Bay Industrial Estate port facility, which it built then transferred ownership of to the Korean government (see 2404080057) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).

The Court of International Trade on July 2 said in a text-only order it will hold oral argument on importer Detroit Axle's challenge of President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese products via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While CIT Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani stayed consideration of the importer's claims against the tariffs on China issued under IEEPA, the judges set a July 10 oral argument date for consideration of the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against the end of the de minimis threshold (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.’s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106. It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318) (see 2506040076).

After the Commerce Department chose on remand to again directly value antidumping duty review mandatory respondent Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies’ energy costs in an AD administrative review, the exporter said June 20 in response that the department just “recycled” its initial results (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).