Commerce made errors in its calculations, choice of data, and use of adverse facts available during the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate motions for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade. The case combined several complaints all challenging aspects of Commerce’s final determination (see 2208300012) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00219).

The Court of International Trade should consolidate two classification cases concerning imported incontinence apparel, medical textile contractor Viecura told the court in a March 23 motion. Consolidation would "promote a speedy, just, and inexpensive resolution of cases" and is preferable to the designation of a test case because "the sole issue in these two cases is the same," Viecura said. It also would prevent the need to litigate two cases, while the court resolves the sole issue, Viecura said (Viecura v. U.S., CIT #s 21-00154, -00546).

The Commerce Department committed a "clear legal error" by failing to follow the statute and its own prior practice by using acquisition prices paid by antidumping duty respondent Nexco as opposed to actual cost data from the beekeepers themselves for the cost of production in an AD investigation on raw honey from Argentina, Nexco argued in a March 24 reply brief. The respondent said there is nothing "pragmatic" about disregarding the actual costs of making the merchandise under review in favor of acquisition prices, as the government claims (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).

A German steel producer cannot claim that the Commerce Department used adverse inferences in selecting the producer's own submitted information, DOJ said in a March 23 response brief at the Court of International Trade defending Commerce's third remand redetermination on an antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. DOJ said Commerce complied with the court's order to further explain the department's use of Dillinger’s normal books and records as facts otherwise available (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).

CBP can confer classification "treatment" on a good through consistent decisions at a single port, the Court of International Trade ruled March 24. Finding importer Kent International's imported child safety seats for bicycles should be classified as seats rather than bicycle parts, Judge Leo Gordon agreed with Kent that the Port of New York/Newark's consistent classification of them as seats constituted treatment on a "national basis" because the standard does not require treatment to have been applied at multiple ports, only that CBP not take inconsistent actions over a two-year period.

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

Missouri-based steel distributor Mid Continent Steel & Wire will appeal a Feb. 15 opinion by Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker that nullified a "draconian" antidumping duty rate imposed on Oman Fasteners, according to a March 23 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the CIT case, Baker found that Commerce abused its discretion by using adverse facts available to calculate a dumping rate of 154.33% for Oman Fasteners based on a single filing submitted 16 minutes late (see 2302280040). The case at CIT is still ongoing (Oman Fasteners v, United States, CIT # 22-0348).

The Court of International Trade should affirm Commerce's remand redetermination in a countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite the department dropping a subsidy under protest, Commerce said in its March 16 response to remand comments (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00120).

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a customs penalty case for another three months to allow the U.S. and defendants, led by Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, to "finalize resolution of the matters." Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until June 22 to either settle the case or file a joint status report. The U.S. seeks penalties due to fraud totalling over $2.9 million from Ho, Wintis Corp., Ship Communications, Aelis Nova and Maderdove. The government said Ho knowingly misclassified headlight conversion kits resulting in a duty underpayment (U.S. v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, CIT # 19-00102).

Consistent classification of imported child safety seats for bicycles as seats rather than bicycle parts by the port of New York/Newark constitutes a "treatment" by CBP, Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled in a March 24 opinion, granting summary judgment for importer Kent International. CBP classified some of the seats under subheading 8714.99.80 "other" bicycle parts, which carried a 10% duty rate. Kent claimed that the items were seats under the duty-free subheading 9401.80 and that CBP had violated the treatment provision with its classifications.