CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion on administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236). AEFTC is challenging the results of the administrative review that reversed an earlier CBP finding that Kingtom Aluminio had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic (see 2208090018). AEFTC argued that the results of the administrative review "undermined the evidence collected at the on-site verification and accepted Kingtom’s proffered reconciliation of its production data," which CBP had previously rejected. AEFTC asked the court to remand the matter to CBP.

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, shouldn't be allowed reconsideration at the Court of International Trade following the dismissal of their case challenging the Commerce Department's failure to conduct verification in an antidumping duty investigation due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the government said in an Aug. 11 response motion (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).

Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating is properly classified in the tariff schedule as steel tubing, not insulating fittings, because testing shows the tubing does not meet a specific electrical resistance threshold, the government said in its Aug. 11 cross-motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).

The Court of International Trade agreed with the government that a nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026 (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). In an Aug. 12 opinion, Judge Jane Restani ruled in favor of the government's March 8 cross-motion for summary judgment (see 2203140007).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Commerce erred in its calculations of countervailable subsidies in an administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China, which led to a higher rate for non-individually reviewed average rate respondents, Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood said in an Aug. 9 complaint filed to the Court of International Trade. In the review, Commerce calculated countervailable subsidy rates for the two mandatory respondents -- 12.74% and 3.36% -- and 9.85% for non-selected companies, including GreenHome. GreenHome said that Commerce incorrectly calculated the subsidy rates during the review and has asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for a redetermination.

A law firm representing a plaintiff in a classification case at the Court of International Trade says that its client has become unresponsive and will again ask the court for permission to withdraw its representation as counsel for Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd., according to an Aug. 11 status report at CIT (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03776). The firm, Rock Trade Law, has previously tried to withdraw its representation over alleged outstanding legal fees but Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, Rock Trade Law could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified (see 2207110070).

Minor issues in reporting home market sales in an antidumping duty administrative review don’t rise to the level that would justify an adverse facts available margin for an exporter’s large power transformers from South Korea, nor does the exporter’s purported lack of cooperation in a previous year’s administrative review give Commerce leeway to apply AFA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Aug. 11.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not grant a rehearing petition to Hitachi in an antidumping duty case, argue both the U.S. government and defendant-appellant Hyundai in two separate Aug. 9 responses at CAFC (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2114).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: