The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 5 confidential opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. In a letter submitted to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Oct. 12 to review the opinion over information that should be deemed confidential. In the case, Commerce decided not to consider off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00182).
CBP did not violate the law by refusing to make a referral to the Commerce Department on a question of country of origin since CBP was "fully able to determine" that the wooden cabinets and vanities at issue in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation were covered by the relevant orders, petitioner Masterbrand Cabinets argued in an Oct. 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion ruled that CBP properly classified net wraps used for bailing hay as a warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against classification under plaintiff RKW Klerks' preferred subheading 8433.90.50 as "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 3 in the Meyer v. U.S. case. In the August Meyer opinion, the appellate court ruled CBP has no basis to consider a country's non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case now heads back to the Court of International Trade to determine how to appraise the cookware imported by Meyer at the center of the action. Counsel for Meyer indicated that retrial and mediation are being considered (see 2208240070) (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 3 order gave the U.S. an additional 4,000 words for its reply brief in a spat over whether the president can revoke a safeguard exemption granted for bifacial solar panels. The government originally sought to double its word count to 14,000, though the appellees in the matter, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, proposed to limit the bid to 11,000 (see 2209190057). Judge Jimmie Reyna sided with the appellees (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The Commerce Department failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's remand instructions concerning its duty to perform verification in an antidumping duty case, plaintiffs led by Bonney Forge argued in an Oct. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade. The trade court ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it cannot in the context of current conditions and not those of the investigation period. Bonney Forge argued that Commerce violated these instructions by basing its remand results on the conditions during the investigation (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
Importer Bral failed to clear the three-prong test needed to make a valid claim for an allowance in value for imports of plywood, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade over its cross-motion for judgment. While Bral is correct that it does not make commercial sense to contract for defective goods, the importer needs to prove at a minimum that it entered into a contract with the overseas plywood producer for a good of specific qualities that is to perform in a certain way -- a bar Bral failed to meet, the brief said (Bral Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-00154).
CBP filed remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade Oct. 3, continuing to find products from importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China. The U.S. had filed a voluntary remand request to add the record of the Commerce Department's scope ruling to the record, but after putting it on the record, CBP stuck to its guns on the evasion finding, declaring that the scope ruling supported its initial decision (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion found that CBP correctly classified two types of net wraps both used to wrap bales of harvested crops. The case was brought by RKW Klerks to contest CBP's classification of the wraps as synthetic "warp knit fabrics" classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. RKW Clerks had said they are instead "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery" under subheading 8433.90.50.
The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA demands that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision finding that a protest with CBP is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the appellants and importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued in an Oct. 4 brief. Seeking reconsideration at the appellate court, ARP and Harrison said that the Federal Circuit's opinion does not consider the EPA case, which embraced the "major questions doctrine" -- the idea that federal agencies need explicit congressional approval to regulate issues fundamental to the economy (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).