The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of an antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden remanded the final results of the review to Commerce for the agency to reconsider its decision that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge sustained Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law, as well as the agency's finding that respondent Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error.

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.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods CBP seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled April 11. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 again sent back the Commerce Department's application of an adverse facts available rate to countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in the sixth administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani said that Risen provided enough gap-filling information related to 95% of its sales to cover the Chinese government's failure to explain the EBCP.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China. Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products raised several challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection that Judge Mark Barnett found unconvincing. The court did not address whether the surrogate data Commerce used was the best available but only "whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information," Barnett said in his April 11 opinion. "Although Commerce’s explanation is not as thorough as it could be, the court can discern the agency’s path of reasoning," Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.

The Commerce Department illegally found that steel plate cost fluctuations in the production of utility scale wind towers were unrelated to the physical characteristics of the finished wind towers, antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While Commerce said its decision to weight-average Dongkuk's reported steel plate costs for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) was needed to "mitigate the cost differences unrelated to the product physical characteristics," Dongkuk said this approach was not backed by enough evidence (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).

Finished door thresholds already found to be outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China cannot constitute covered merchandise for the purposes of an Enforce and Protect Act evasion investigation, Columbia Aluminum said in an April 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00185).

Net wraps used for bailing hay are properly classified as warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00, the DOJ argued in an April 10 opening brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. RKW Klerks appealed the Court of International Trade's Oct. 4 decision that held that the net wraps are warp knit fabric rather than RKW's preferred classification as "parts of agricultural machines" under HTS subheading 8433.90.50 (see 2210050032) (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).