The Court of International Trade granted Best Mattresses International Company and Rose Lion Furniture International Company an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of their mattress entries in a Feb. 14 order. The injunction bid faced opposition from the DOJ, which argued that the injunction should only run until April 30, 2022 -- the end date of the first administrative review of the AD order in question. The companies are plaintiffs in a challenge to the AD order on mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the injunction was justified since the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm and success on the merits of the case.

A CBP protest was not needed to establish jurisdiction in two companies' challenge to CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion since the challenge is not an entry-specific matter, the companies, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel, said in a Feb. 7 brief. Replying to the U.S.'s arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff-appellants said that their challenge has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction provision, since the action relates to CBP's imposition of the requirements of an "inapt statute" to all the entries excluded from tariff lists 2 and 3 (ARP Materials Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 consolidated two cases filed by Incase Design Group. The order follows a motion by Incase to combine the cases because it would "promote administrative and judicial efficiency." Both cases involve the same product and are being considered by the same judge. They also concern the same underlying issue: whether "the proper classification of sports armband cell phone holders" is under subheading 4202.99.90 as "... containers ... of sheeting of plastics ... ," dutiable at 20%, or under subheading 3926.90.99 as "other articles of plastics ..., ," dutiable at 5.3%. Judge Stephen Vaden granted Incase's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." The combined cases proceed as number 16-00267.

The Commerce Department excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings because the Court of International Trade left no alternative, Commerce said in a Feb. 7 brief. Responding to U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions arguments in a reply brief at CIT, Commerce said that even though the court initially agreed that the plain scope language included Star Pipe's flanges in the AD order, it said this was insufficient to include the flanges (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

The Commerce Department stuck with its application of adverse facts available over certain countervailing duty respondents' alleged use of China's Exporter Buyer's Credit Program in its Feb. 9 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, responding to a series of questions the court wanted answered on why the agency's lack of certain information from the Chinese government precluded its ability to verify that the respondents didn't use the program (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00113).

The Court of International Trade reported Feb. 8 that mediation over certain elements of a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge resulted in a settlement of all issues. The trade court reported the same outcome for two similar cases Feb. 4 (see 2202040041). The mediation was held by Judge Leo Gordon and was ordered after the plaintiffs, Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, wanted a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries. Specifics of the mediation were not made known. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case after AD separate rate respondent Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited said that it received full relief resulting from the liquidation of its entries and a refund of excess duties paid. The case stems from an antidumping duty administrative review of orders on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying antidumping duty order received de minimis rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD duty rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent. No parties opposed the remand results. (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 22-9, CIT Consol. #14-00135, dated 02/07/22, Judge Timothy Stanceu)

The Commerce Department erred when it found that two countervailing duty review mandatory respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation, the CVD petitioner, Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, said in a Feb. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT #22-00002).

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 Commerce Department cannot rely on adverse facts available in response the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information relating to its Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 8 decision. Adding another to a line of decisions striking down the application of AFA in such circumstances, the court said Commerce has not shown why this information is necessary to verify that the CVD respondents, and their U.S. customers, did not use the program.