CBP found an article description for aircraft parts at the 10-digit level in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule begins with "other" and correctly denied a claim for unused substitution drawback, DOJ said in a June 2 cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the placement of the word "other" in the superior text between the 8-digit HTS subheading and the 10-digit statistical reporting number. The court's ruling could shake up the industry and could change how CBP interprets what HTS numbers are eligible or not for this type of drawback (see 2303270031) (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

The Court of International Trade properly required Commerce to drop its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) said in a June 5 response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1469).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should disregard the government's procedural arguments in a case on whether Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China, importer Smith-Cooper International (SCI) argued in a reply brief (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

The Commerce Department correctly continued to find that usage rights at the Port of Incheon granted to Hyundai Steel by the Korean government were countervailable but did not require a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, DOJ said alongside defendant-intervenors Nucor, SSAB and Steel Dynamics in separate remand comments submitted to the Court of International Trade on June 1 (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00536).

The Commerce Department correctly followed a Court of International Trade remand order when it declined to use a mistakenly chosen respondent's individually calculated rate in its calculation of the non-selected respondents rate, instead basing the non-selected rate on the individual rate for a single mandatory respondent, DOJ said in its May 31 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry v. U.S., CIT # 20-03885).

Three conservation groups moved to dismiss their suit at the Court of International Trade seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of endangered wildlife. The groups ditched the suit after Interior determined Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which could lead to a ban on imports of Mexican wildlife (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00339).

The Court of International Trade dismissed a customs suit filed by Ivaco Rolling Miss 2004 and Sivaco Wire Group 2004 for lack of prosecution. The case concerned the companies' claims that its steel articles were improperly denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The trade court said the case, which was placed on the customs case management calendar, was not removed at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 v. U.S., CIT # 21-00234).

The Court of International Trade's recent decision on the customs classification of frozen fruit mixtures supports the government's arguments in a customs spat on importer Second Nature Design's imports of dried botanical items used in home decor, the U.S. said in a notice of supplemental authority. Acknowledging that the trade court's recent opinion in Nature's Touch Frozen Foods v. U.S. is not final, the government nevertheless said that Judge Stephen Vaden's opinion backs its case (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT # 17-00271).

The Commerce Department correctly determined that Korean exporter SeAH Steel failed to cooperate fully in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea because SeAH waited until verification to provide information that should have been submitted in response to an initial questionnaire, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe said in their May 30 response brief. Because SeAH failed to act to the best of its ability, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was warranted, Borusan said (SeAH Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).

Antidumping petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' motion to dismiss a suit on an AD review of steel pipes and tubes from South Korea fails to consider all of exporter HiSteel's claims, the exporter argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nucor claims a Commerce Department reversal of its adjustments to HiSteel's costs and scrap offset as a result of the transactions disregarded rule will not change the company's margin, HiSteel said the true effect on its margin is unknown given its remaining claim against Commerce's differential pricing analysis (DPA) (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00142).