Importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing will appeal to the Federal Circuit a March Court of International Trade opinion ruling that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics, according to a May 13 notice of appeal. At CIT,, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that CBP correctly classified the gloves, which were imported from China and South Korea in 2015 (see 2203280037) (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT #16-00150).

Importer Root Sciences will appeal an October 2021 Court of International Trade opinion that said that the court did not have jurisdiction over CBP's seizure of Root's goods. According to the May 13 notice of appeal, Root will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court ruled that since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, thus precluding any protestable event, jurisdiction is barred at CIT for seized goods (see 2110070022). Root filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines as "drug paraphernalia" (Root Sciences v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Commerce Department violated the law in finding that Nur Gemicilik is a cross-owned input supplier of Turkish exporter and mandatory countervailing duty review respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While Nur provided Kaptan with scrap generated from its shipbuilding enterprise, the amount was "extremely miniscule," precluding Nur from being a cross-owned input supplier, the complaint said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00149).

The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's drop of facts available after the court made the agency give antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co. the chance to explain a discrepancy between the reporting of two data fields. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., argued that the results should not be sustained given Hyundai's shifting narratives on the discrepancy. Judge Richard Eaton was not persuaded, however, arguing that since Hyundai gave Commerce the information it requested, the respondent replied to the best of its ability.

The Commerce Department properly found affiliated antidumping duty respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in reporting the U.S. payment dates for their pasta sales, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 4 opinion made public May 13. Returning to the trade court to further explain its use of an adverse inference, Commerce said Ghigi's and Zara's errors in reporting their U.S. payment dates was due to "inattention and carelessness." Judge Richard Eaton agreed, upholding the remand.

The Court of International Trade assigned two customs actions brought by Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to Judge Jane Restani, the court said in two May 12 orders. Ildico filed the case to argue that its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and with synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (see 2204290030) (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136).

The Court of International Trade in a May 12 confidential opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton told litigants to return to the court by May 19 after reviewing the opinion for business confidential information. The case was brought by Chinese exporter Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. to contest Commerce's position on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and use of a different plywood benchmark for different companies despite the fact that they used the same types of plywood (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00110).

The Commerce Department's decision to accept mandatory antidumping duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's method for reporting its U.S. movement expenses was illegal, U.S. manufacturer Daikin America argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Gujarat Fluorochemicals' ignored Commerce's instructions to report its sales expenses on a transaction-specific basis, which should have prompted the use of adverse facts available, the complaint said (Daikin America v. United States, CIT #22-00122).

The "text, structure, purpose, and history" of the Section 201 statute all reveal that Congress did not intend for the Court of International Trade's strict reading of the president's authority to modify safeguard duties, the U.S. argued in its May 11 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ is fighting to reverse a ruling at CIT that found that the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).

The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by Hyundai Steel Co. over the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its reliance on facts available for Hyundai over a discrepancy in the reporting on two data fields once the agency gave the respondent a chance to clear up why the discrepancy existed. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., urged for the continued use of facts available. Judge Richard Eaton wasn't persuaded, though, finding that since Hyundai gave the requested information, Commerce made the right call in dropping the use of facts available.