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.

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corp. will appeal two February Court of International Trade decisions upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, it said in two notices of appeal. The trade court had sustained the test, finding that the use of an entire population of data instead of a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the 2021 Stupp Corp. v. U.S. decision (see 2302230056). One of the cases is the Stupp proceeding itself, in which the court ruled that Commerce adequately addressed the Federal Circuit's questions (see 2302270049) (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 19-00086) (Stupp Corp. v. Unied States, CIT # 15-00334).

The Court of International Trade should disallow a respondent in an antidumping duty case on steel nails from Taiwan to speaki at oral arguments, plaintiff Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in a March 20 opposition motion (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).

The Court of International Trade's recent decision in MTD Products v. U.S., which upheld the International Trade Commission's retroactive application of antidumping and countervailing duties on small vertical shaft engines from China, is "particularly instructive" in a case brought by Sweet Harvest Foods, the ITC said in a notice of supplemental authority. In MTD, the trade court upheld an ITC critical circumstances decision "under the same legal framework that applies in the instant case," the commission said (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, CIT # 22-00188).

The Court of International Trade shouldn't grant a stay in an antidumping case pending the expiration of the deadline to appeal the court's recent decision in another case that deals with the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping, two exporters argued March 20. HiSteel Co. and Dong-A Steel Co. said the court shouldn't grant the stay because their action doesn't deal with the same issue as the recent decision in Stupp Corp. v. U.S.

Commerce illegally departed from its standard methodology when it decided to use third-country control number (CONNUM) costs in the final results of an antidumping duty review on lined paper products from India and then attempted to obscure its standard practice as a defense in court, Navneet said in a March 17 reply at the Court of International Trade. The court should remand the case to Commerce with instructions to recalculate Navneet’s 20.22% dumping margin, the brief said (Navneet Education v. U.S., CIT # 22-00132).

Importers in the massive litigation over President Donald Trump's Section 301 action on China will appeal Court of International Trade rulings upholding the tariffs. Pratik Shah, counsel for lead plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, said he believes the importers' arguments are strong.

Canadian company J.D. Irving will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision dismissing its challenge of the Commerce Department'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. Per the notice of appeal, J.D. Irving will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the trade court's opinion, Judge Timothy Reif said that the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) since jurisdiction would have been available under Section 1581(c) (J.D. Irving v. United States, CIT # 21-00641).

The Commerce Department's determination to use acquisition costs as a proxy for costs of production without applying adverse inferences in its antidumping duty investigation covering raw honey from India was necessary to account for the structure of the Indian honey industry, with thousands of beekeepers and middlemen, and derived from lessons learned in a previous AD proceeding involving honey, DOJ argued in a March 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (American Honey Producers Association v. U.S., CIT # 22-00195).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 21 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. In a letter to litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until March 28 to review any confidential information in the opinion. The plaintiffs, led by Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., filed a five-count complaint in the proceeding to contest Commerce's calculation of the benchmark for the aluminum sheet, primary aluminum and land for less than adequate remuneration programs. The plaintiffs also contested the agency's decision to reject additional benchmark and land information from Jiangsu Zhongji (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00133).