German aluminum manufacturer Speira argued in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to apply the antidumping duty rate the Commerce Department calculated for Hydro Aluminum Rolled Products to its entries, since Commerce found that Speira is the successor-in-interest to Hydro. As a result, CBP refused to refund the excess duties paid by Speira, the company said (Speira v. United States, CIT # 25-00218).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 sustained the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility-scale wind towers from Malaysia. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce permissibly decided not to apply an adjustment to the cost of production to "account for production volume decreases before a shutdown" and selected Malaysian companies Mycron Steel and Alpine Pipe Manufacturing as the surrogate companies for calculating respondent CS Wind's constructed value profit. Regarding the cost of production adjustment, Katzmann noted that the agency properly captured the shutdown-related costs in a separate variable submitted by CS Wind.

The Commerce Department improperly found that the plain language of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China cover Vietnamese chassis with Chinese-origin components, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Claire Kelly said the orders "contain multiple ambiguities," including "when components are included within the scope of the Orders," when third-country operations exclude the individual components from the orders, and the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu joined many of his colleagues in granting the government's motions to stay its case before him, pending the federal government shutdown. Like other CIT judges, Stanceu ordered the government to file a status report within 10 days of the appropriations lapse ending to establish new filing deadlines (see 2510020051).

Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed the U.S. government's request to stay the company's lawsuit against CBP pending the lapse in federal appropriations. Kingtom, which is challenging CBP's finding that it made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor, argued that a stay would harm the company and that the U.S. "has made no showing of clear hardship if the stay is denied" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

During oral argument held Sept. 3 at the Court of International Trade, Judge Mark Barnett expressed skepticism about an argument that negative antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations regarding a product preclude the Commerce Department from starting circumvention inquiries into the same product (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that importer Pitts Enterprises' chassis from Vietnam containing Chinese-origin axle and landing gear components fall under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China. Judge Claire Kelly held that Commerce must adopt the "plain meaning of the word 'entered'" in the AD/CVD orders, "namely 'entered into the United States.'" Kelly also rejected the agency's claim that the plain meaning of the orders covers Chinese-origin parts that enter the U.S. as part of a chassis. She found that the orders are ambiguous as to "when components are included within the scope of the Orders." They're also unclear on when third country operations remove these parts from the orders, as well as on the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled." Lastly, the judge told Commerce to reconsider its decision to impose AD/CVD on the "entire value of the imported chassis" rather than just on the Chinese-origin parts.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed counsel for importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination and the government during oral argument on Oct. 7 in the importer's customs classification suit on its notebooks with calendars. During the argument, Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Chen and William Bryson grappled with whether the court is bound by its 2010 ruling in Mead v. U.S. and whether the goods are properly classified as calendars or diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).