CBP is reversing its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, after finding it did not consider important evidence when it affirmed the original evasion finding in an administrative review, in remand results filed Jan. 4 at the Court of International Trade (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00337).

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.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders. Given the lack of any challenge, Judge Jane Restani upheld the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 9 order gave the U.S. more time to file its reply brief in a case involving imports seized as "drug paraphernalia." The government now has until Feb. 10 to submit its response. Root Sciences filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines. The agency didn't notify Root of the seizure but instead sent the importer an automated notice that the goods had been deemed excluded from entry. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after filing its case at the Court of International Trade (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).

Plaintiffs Ellwood City Forge, Ellwood National Steel, Ellwood Quality Steel and A. Finkl & Sons will appeal a Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification in an antidumping duty case. The plaintiffs will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Jan. 6 notice of appeal. In the case, which concerns the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, the trade court said the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on the verification question (see 2206140044). The plaintiffs then unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the issue -- a move the court deemed to be an impermissible attempt to relitigate the case (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT #21-00073).

The Commerce Department violated the law when it carried out a bona fides analysis of separate rate respondent Dalian Hualing Wood Co. in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The move "was contrary to its precedent, practice, was arbitrary" and not supported by evidence, the brief said. Commerce further erred by treating Hualing's sale as non-bona fide in the antidumping duty review while treating it as bona fide in the countervailing duty review (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00334).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 9 opinion denied the New Zealand government's bid to delay a preliminary injunction barring the import of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries into the U.S. The New Zealand government requested the temporary stay of the PI to set up a traceability system that would help the govenrment identify the fish subject to the injunction. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the need to set up this system does not constitute a changed circumstance that would permit the modification of the PI.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 6 order dismissed a customs case from importer Tylt over the retroactive application of exclusions that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for certain goods subject to Section 301 tariffs. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. Tylt's complaint said the language in the exclusion announcement doesn't prevent Section 301 refunds for entries that are not protestable since the protest deadline expired. It also said the USTR's withholding the refund of duties for entries that are not protestable is arbitrary and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (Tylt v. U.S., CIT # 21-00579).

Two Court of International Trade decisions cited by plaintiff-appellants in a scope case as supplemental authorities need not be considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, defendant-appellee Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in a Jan. 4 letter to the appellate court. The CIT decisions are not "pertinent and significant" because they are "not binding on this court" and "are simply further decisions from the same dissenting judge" at the trade court, the appellee said (China Custom Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).