The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade case that found CBP can't pursue unpaid duties from identity theft victims due to the statute of limitations. Per the May 25 notice of appeal, DOJ is taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court opinion tossed a case brought by the U.S. seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on 386 entries of passenger and light truck tires from China that Katana said were the result of identity theft (see 2203280047). The judge said Katana was allowed to revoke an earlier statute of limitations waiver and that without the waiver, any action by CBP is barred by the passage of time (United States v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT #19-00125).

The Court of International Trade in a May 26 order denied the U.S.' motion for a stay in an antidumping case. The case, brought by exporter Building Systems de Mexico, contests the less-than-fair-value investigation into fabricated structural steel from Mexico. The U.S. requested a stay until the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a decision in an appeal of the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on the steel from China. Judge Claire Kelly said that "a stay is not appropriate in this case" since BSM could be harmed by a stay order. The exporter has already successfully challenged four of the Commerce Department's bases for finding dumping, and a stay would "significantly devalue" its investment in challenging the finding of dumping needed for an AD order, she said.

The Court of International Trade in two May 26 orders sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case, both brought by Turkish exporter Celik Halat. The cases contested the Commerce Department's decision to reject minutes-late submissions. Following a remand, the agency accepted the submissions, resulting in lowered AD/CVD rates for Celik Halat and the ultimate acceptance of the remand by the trade court.

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion made public May 27 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available over alleged subsidies stemming from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation. Judge Richard Eaton said that not enough evidence backs Commerce's use of AFA to find that the plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co., benefitted from the EBCP. In the investigation, Commerce also tripled the subsidy rate for the program to account for benefits received by Junyue and two of its affiliates. Eaton remanded this as well, finding that this move "has not been explained adequately."

Korean steel producer Nexteel filed a complaint May 25 with the Court of International Trade over alleged errors in calculating antidumping duty rates during an administrative review on oil tubular goods from Korea. In it, Nexteel, a non-individually examined separate rate company, challenges the rate Commerce calculated for Hyundai Steel that resulted in a higher average rate assigned to Nexteel and the other 29 non-individually investigated respondents (Nexteel Co., Ltd v. United States, CIT No. 22-00140).

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case led by Ellwood City Forge failed to challenge the legality of the questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions until the case reached the Court of International Trade, highlighting their failure to exhaust administrative remedies, exporter Bharat Forge argued. In a reply brief filed May 20, the exporter said the issue was "ripe for consideration" during the AD case, "yet Plaintiffs inexplicably did not raise" it (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).

Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under heading 0811 as "fruit and nuts," rather than under heading 2106 as "food preparations," the government said in a cross-motion for summary judgement filed with the Court of International Trade on May 23 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).

The Commerce Department's move to not fix a programming error in its antidumping margin calculation, which resulted in "irrelevant third country costs" getting assigned to sold but not produced products, was "unreasonable" and illegal, exporter Navneet Education Ltd. said in a May 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of such an error was "an overinflated and inaccurate dumping margin that did not reflect the reality of Navneet's de minimis margin that it should have received," the complaint said (Navneet Education Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00132).

CBP can reasonably interpret facts to establish that an importer is evading antidumping and countervailing duties in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, and doesn't need to establish that no other conclusion could possibly be drawn from the record in an EAPA case, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed May 20 (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT #21-00136).

Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge of the Court of International Trade, suggested that videoconferencing, which was rolled out as a salve for judicial proceedings in the face of COVID-19, is here to stay, especially for certain smaller proceedings in various trade cases. Speaking at the Georgetown International Trade Update on May 24, Barnett said that while in-person oral arguments are more in favor with the judges at the trade court, the prospect of continued videoconferencing to handle some smaller issues remains a real possibility for the court as it shifts out of the pandemic restrictions.