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 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 Court of International Trade will close out a controversial case involving allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion by a Dominican exporter in the 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.

The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping review on activated carbon from China back 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.

Antidumping duty respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi relied on a "mischaracterization of the facts" when arguing against the Commerce Department's use of home market prices denominated in Turkish lira, antidumping petitioners, led by Cleveland-Cliffs, argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioners said that, contrary to the respondent's contention, the invoice stated prices in lira and that it was the lira value and not the U.S. dollar value that controlled how much the customer paid, making Commerce's move legal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).

Bergan Pets and the federal government reached an agreement surrounding the correct classification of imported pet carriers, according to a stipulated judgment agreement, signed by Judge Gary Katzmann on July 25 (Bergan Pets v. U.S., CIT #15-00134). Bergan imported the items in October 2012 through Kansas City. CBP liquidated the merchandise in 2013 under the subheading 4202.92.90, as "travel, sports or similar bags," and assessed 17.6% duties. Bergan filed three protests in 2014, all of which were denied, before filing suit at CIT. Both sides have agreed that the correct classification should be under subheading 6307.90.98 as "Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Other: Other," dutiable at 7%.

The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled against importer Cyber Power Systems in four motions -- two from Cyber Power, and two from the government -- in a case regarding the country of origin of imported surgery protectors (Cyber Power Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00124).

Importer Compart Systems dismissed its customs dispute in an Aug. 4 motion at the Court of International Trade. The company filed the case to contest the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of its parts and accessories for the manufacture of semiconductors. The parts liquidated under subheading 8481.10.0090, dutiable at 2%, but the company vied for classification under subheading 8486.90.0000, free of duty. Compart Systems' notice of dismissal did not provide a reason for the case being tossed, and counsel for the importer did not reply to request for comment (Compart Systems v. U.S., CIT #21-00558).

The Court of International Trade should overturn a decision by CBP to classify imported desk pad and planning calendars, importer Blue Sky said in a complaint filed Aug. 4 at the Court of International Trade (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00624).

Four honey importers -- Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods -- filed four nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4 arguing against the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The six-count complaints argue against that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume has not jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping order such as to require a critical circumstances determination.