CBP and an importer reached a settlement in four customs cases on the classification of the company's photoresists. The goods were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3707.90.32, covering certain chemical preparations for photographic uses, dutiable at 6.5%. The agency agreed to liquidate the entries as sensitizing emulsions under subheading 3707.10.00, dutiable at 3%. The cases were brought by Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, formerly known as Ohka America, and cover hundreds of the company's entries (Ohka America v. U.S., CIT #s 04-00583, 05-00292) (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. U.S., CIT #s 10-00243, 17-00067).

Tomato exporters led by NS Brands failed to show good cause to untimely intervene in a case on the Commerce Department's 1996 antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes, petitioner The Florida Tomato Exchange argued on Nov. 8. The petitioner said NS Brands knew when the case started that the parties were challenging Commerce's failure to continue the proceeding and "has shown no reason it could not have timely intervened in this proceeding" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).

After the Commerce Department made no changes to the results of a 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese solar cells (see 2408300020) after a remand order (see 2405090045), importers and exporters said that the department had failed to follow the trade court’s instructions -- continuing to justify use of a second surrogate to value an input with the argument that it needed that input reported in something other than kilograms even though it itself ordered respondents to report that way (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly issued a confidential decision deciding the matter, giving the parties until Nov. 14 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's finding that exporter Louis Dreyfus wasn't affiliated with its main fresh lemon supplier, leading to a de minimis rate for the company in the antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. Filing a confidential decision Nov. 7, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Nov. 14 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

In response to U.S. opposition (see 2410090041) to its motion for judgment (see 2408010044), an aluminum importer again said Nov. 5 that its manufacturer’s production in South Korea was not minor or insignificant (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The U.S. argued that mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is improper on the question of whether the government properly served exporter Koehler Paper through its U.S. counsel. Responding on Nov. 6 to Koehler's petition for writ of mandamus, the U.S. said mandamus relief isn't "clear and indisputable" and that an appeal from a final order from the Court of International Trade "should not be inadequate" (In re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 granted the government's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The U.S. asked for the remand to consider the impact of recent CIT cases Global Aluminum Distributor v. U.S. and H&E Home v. U.S. in which CBP reversed its findings of AD/CVD evasion on Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio (see 2209080013) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00072).

Importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel argued that the continued application of an injunction on the liquidation of its "Method B" wheel entries is "inequitable," since the plain reading of the injunction shows that the Method B wheels never have been enjoined. Responding to opposition from AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development Inc. to Lionshead's bid to amend the PI at the Court of International Trade, Lionshead added that the amendment wouldn't reverse a CBP decision, as Dexstar claims (Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00019).