The Commerce Department properly refused to factor a company’s alleged losses related to the company's failure to convert certain expenses from U.S. dollars to Canadian dollars into the cost of manufacturing wind towers from Canada, the Court of International Trade said March 20. Antidumping duty respondent Marmen didn’t qualify for the adjustments because its exchange gains and losses were already accounted for in the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in an opinion.

Importer Shamrock Building Materials will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding CBP's classification of the company's steel conduit tubing imports from Mexico as steel tubing and not insulated fittings, according to a notice of appeal. Shamrock will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court ruled that the "uncontested facts" show the tubing is not insulated and therefore subject to 25% Section 232 steel tariffs (see 2303140035) (Shamrock Building Materials v. U.S., CIT # 20-00074).

After a fifth remand order, the Commerce Department assigned a zero percent all-others dumping margin in a less-than-fair-value investigation onf certain hardwood plywood products from China, according to remand results released March 16 (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00002).

The Commerce Department accepted ministerial errors originally rejected as untimely in an antidumping duty proceeding on remand at the Court of International Trade, raising the dumping rates for the two respondents should the remand results be sustained. Commerce corrected errors in respondent Prolamsa's currency conversion and respondent Maquilacero's quarterly cost methodology in the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, causing their AD rates to rise from zero percent to 2.11% for Prolamsa and to 3.48% for Maquilacero (Nucor Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 21-00543).

The International Trade Commission legally applied retroactive antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of small vertical shaft engines from China, the Court of International Trade said. In a March 16 opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker said the "court will not second-guess" the ITC's decision, which found that the retroactive duties were justified because of a surge in imports of the engines just before the antidumping and countervailing duties took effect.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, the Court of International Trade held in a much-anticipated opinion on March 17. After USTR provided more explanation of its tariff decisions on remand, judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.

The Court of International Trade sustained three antidumping and countervailing duty cases March 20, and uphold parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's determination in a fourth. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves decided all four cases.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied motions for judgment from both an importer and the government in a case involving the valuation of allegedly defective plywood. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves found that "genuine issues of material fact exist" as to the salvage value of the plywood, whether all the plywood was indeed defective, whether the importer, Bral, can tie the defective plywood to specific entries, and how the defects violate the underlying contract with the supplier.

The Court of International Trade on March 16 refused to accept a second motion to dismiss from Zhe "John" Liu, a defendant in a penalty case, since it "is not a motion provided for by the rules of the court." Judge Jane Restani ruled that Liu's "excuse" for filing the second motion -- that "something signficant" intervened -- "is not well-taken." The trade court instead accepted Liu's first motion to dismiss, and told Liu to make sure future filings align with court rules (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

The Court of International Trade on March 16 referred a customs penalty case to mediation, staying the proceedings until June 30. DOJ alleges Crown Cork & Seal USA misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court recently denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053) (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).