The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's determination, made on remand, that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking, Inc., evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a decision made public Oct. 9, Judge Lisa Wang rejected Scioto's claim that CBP can only make an affirmative evasion finding if it finds the importer to actually have imported covered merchandise through evasion, and the judge found the evasion determination to be supported by substantial evidence.

The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to treat interest accrued on respondent Koehler Paper's unpaid antidumping duties as an indirect selling expense in the 2021-22 AD review of thermal paper from Germany. Judge Gary Katzmann said interest accrued on sales made prior to the review period doesn't qualify for either the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense, since the interest doesn't relate to the sale of "subject merchandise," namely merchandise sold during the review period. The judge added that a prior CIT decision upholding the treatment of interest on AD duties as an indirect selling expense didn't directly consider whether such interest met the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense.

Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).

Target General Merchandise will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the tariff classification of the company's string light models, according to a notice Target filed at the trade court. Last month, CIT found string light models to be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter (see 2508130023). The court said Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees," subjecting the goods to an 8% duty (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

The Court of International Trade partially remanded the International Trade Commission's injury investigation on freight rail couplers from China in a confidential decision issued Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann held oral argument in the case in July, questioning attorneys as to whether it was lawful for the ITC to open an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (see 2507070056) (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).

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 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 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 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.