The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of CBP's classification of importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods' 14 different mixtures of frozen fruit, five of which have frozen vegetable ingredients. Judge Stephen Vaden said the merchandise is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811 since the term "Fruit ... frozen" describes these goods in whole. However, this term does not cover the five mixture types with vegetable ingredients, though the judge added that Nature's Touch's preferred heading, 2106, does not fit either. Vaden ultimately found that the goods are properly classified under subheading 0811.90.80, dutiable at 14.5%, despite both parties' objections that this subheading excludes mixtures.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again rejected the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers' bid to redact 180 unique words in its reply brief in an attorney conflict-of-interest suit. Judge Alan Prost said most of the information the coalition is seeking to redact was made publicly available in the Court of International Trade proceeding, and said information relating to the terms of an engagement agreement the coalition sought to redact was "disclosed without objection" in importer Amsted Rail's opening and reply briefs (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

Although the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty proceeding found that GreenFirst Forest is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM), it concurrently found in a countervailing duty proceeding that the same acquisition was a "significant change," GreenFirst told the Court of International Trade. Even though Commerce uses different standards for starting AD and CVD changed circumstances reviews, GreenFirst thought it was significant that the agency analyzed the acquisition and found "there were no relevant changes to its structure and operations following the acquisition” (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).

The Commerce Department committed several errors in its antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, which resulted in higher AD rates assigned to respondents Maquilacero and TEFLU, as well as the "all-others" rate assigned to plaintiff Perfiles, the company said in a May 23 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Perfiles LM v. U.S., CIT # 23-00094). The company asked the court to remand the review to Commerce.

The International Trade Commission didn't properly consider the "unprecedented conditions" of competition during the period of review in its investigation on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina and Mexico, which led to "erroneous volume, price, and impact determinations, Tenaris Bay City and consolidated plaintiffs from two other cases said in a May 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00344).

Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire does not have standing to appeal a Court of International Trade decision barring the government from collected AD cash deposits from exporter Oman Fasteners at the "punitive" 154.33% dumping rate, Oman Fasteners argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mid Continent is not subject to the injunction and cannot establish legally protected interest in the injunction, "which merely keeps Oman Fasteners in business until a final rate can be determined," the brief said (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available when it decided to countervail the Chinese Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) in its second administrative review of the countervailing duty order on truck and bus tires from China, DOJ argued in a May 22 response to respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co.'s (GRT's) motion for judgment (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).

The Court of International Trade should not have dismissed a case involving Commerce's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada for lack of jurisdiction, J.D. Irving said in its May 22 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1652).

Claims made by importer Aspects Furniture International that questioned CBP evidence in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation lack merit, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The bedroom furniture importer “advances numerous arguments that quibble with credibility findings and overlook detailed explanations provided by Customs," the government said following a remand proceeding at the trade court (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).