The Court of International Trade on Sept. 14 struck down two Commerce Department scope rulings that found door thresholds are not finished products and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce's contention that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were not finished products is contradicted by record evidence, remanding the rulings to the agency for reconsideration.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, in a Sept. 14 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce's use of mandatory respondent Unicatch Industrial Co.'s above-cost home market sales to calculate normal value was legal, the agency's decision to not include Unicatch's antidumping duty deposits in the company's freight revenues was proper, and that Commerce's move to increase Unicatch's cost of production to account for purchases from an affiliated supplier at less than market value was appropriate.

Eteros Technologies USA's challenge of CBP's seizure of its motor frame assemblies seeks to answer a “critical legal question" on the interaction of state and federal marijuana laws, the company said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. CBP seized the assemblies, finding them to meet the federal definition of “drug paraphernalia.” This move set the lines of the case over whether CBP can ignore the authorization exemption for drug paraphernalia where those goods are allowed to be imported and sold in a given state, Eteros said (Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), should not be granted a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Resuming litigation after talks between Commerce and CJE broke down (see 2108300058), the Department of Justice said CJE is unlikely to succeed in its case and that the company has not established certain and imminent irreparable harm (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-1798).

The Commerce Department's alleged misinterpretation of a 2013 Section 129 determination that partially revoked an antidumping duty order on Shantou Red Garden Food Processing (Shantou RGFP) has the company facing millions of dollars in antidumping duty liability, Shantou RGFP said in a Sept. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Due to a misspelling that Commerce refuses to correct, Shantou RGFP found itself participating in an administrative review and being assigned an antidumping duty cash deposit rate even though it was previously found to be outside of the order, the company said (Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03947).

The Commerce Department continued to apply adverse facts available relating to the agency's inability to verify two mandatory respondents' non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, despite lengthy remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. Answering a series of nine questions from Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce thoroughly explained why it continues to apply AFA on this critical issue absent further collaboration with the Chinese government, in its remand results. Likening the saga over the EBCP in the court to the film Groundhog Day, Reif sought an explanation from Commerce that would firmly answer the question of whether AFA was legitimately applied on the issue (Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00032).

The U.S. Court of International Trade vacated the repository requirement imposed in its July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order for importers to request suspending the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said an order signed Sept. 8 by Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. The government will liquidate those entries “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, “should that decision become final and conclusive, including all appeals,” it said. The court also vacated the PI order’s temporary restraining order period when no entries could have liquidated, with or without the repository.

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).