The Commerce Department erred in its calculations of production costs during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina, exporter Nexco said in an August 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nexco, S.A. v. U.S., CIT #22-00203).

The Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in that Dominican exporter’s favor, granting on Aug. 8 a motion to enter judgment sustaining CBP’s reversal of an evasion finding for Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. Kingtom, several importers and the U.S. government had filed a joint motion requesting CBP’s remand results be sustained (see 2206230037).

The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China to the Commerce Department for reconsideration or explanation. While CIT sustained five of the seven surrogate selections at issue in the case, it found the agency failed to explain its surrogate value selection of a dataset for carbonized material and its pick of a company for determining surrogate financial ratios.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 5 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).

Offroad utility vehicles should be classified as passenger rather than cargo transporters, importer MTD said in an Aug. 5 complaint to the Court of International Trade (MTD Consumer Group Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00233).

The Department of Commerce erred in finding that critical circumstances existed in an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation concerning raw honey from Vietnam, argued the National Honey Packers and Dealers Association in an Aug. 5 complaint to the Court of International Trade (National Honey Packers & Dealers Association v. U.S., CIT #22-00194, -00195).

Camera housings are properly classified as camera "parts" rather than "camera cases," argued GoPro at the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 5 motion for summary judgment (GoPro v. U.S., CIT #20-00176).

CBP and importer Launchlab reached a deal on the proper tariff classification of the company's pet carriers, the parties announced in an Aug. 4 stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade. The pet carriers were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.92.90 as "travel, sports or similar bags," dutiable at 17.6%. Per the agreement, the pet carriers will be liquidated under subheading 6307.90.98 as other textile articles, dutiable at 7%. CBP issue refunds with interest, settling a case that began seven years ago (Launchlab v. U.S., CIT #15-00288).