The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 10 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett gave the litigants until May 17 to review the opinion to look over business confidential information (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).

CBP incorrectly denied U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement eligibility to jewelry imported by AAA Jewelers, the importer said in a complaint filed May 9 with the Court of International Trade. AAA Jewelers says its 21-karat and 22-karat gold jewelry pieces were manufactured in Oman and should qualify as Omani originating goods because the total value of materials produced plus the direct costs aren't less than 35% of the appraised value of the goods at the time of entry into the U.S. as required by General Note 31. AAA Jewelers said that the non-originating gold and copper are substantially transformed three separate times in Oman. The first transformation occurs when the 24-karat bars are alloyed with copper to reduce the gold content down to 21- and 22-karat gold, then again when the gold alloy is further processed and manufactured into gold wire, castings and stampings, and finally when the wire, castings and stampings are turned into the finished jewelry.

The Commerce Department illegally used one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit, mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and non-selected respondent AJU Besteel Co. argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138) (AJU Besteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00139).

The Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 10 opinion. As a result, Commerce properly applied adverse facts available, Judge Leo Gordon ruled. Issuing his second opinion in the case after Jangho vied for a rehearing over its unaddressed "alternative arguments," Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.

The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case led by exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request, the U.S. argued in a May 6 reply brief. Responding to Yuhua's arguments attempting to establish jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), and in the alternative, Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, DOJ argued that the decision to not start a scope inquiry is not a reviewable decision under Section 1581(c) (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China in a May 10 decision. Issuing his second opinion in the case after the plaintiff-intervenors, all associated with Jangho Group, vied for a rehearing over their "alternative arguments," Judge Leo Gordon said that Commerce properly hit Jangho with adverse facts available over whether all aluminum extrusions suppliers are "authorities." Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.

The U.S. cannot demand Customs Passenger Processing Fee payments for trips for which customers have canceled their tickets and are issued refunds in the form of travel vouchers, Southwest Airlines argued in a May 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. CBP's move to collect the fees violates the statute's plain terms, which lay out that CBP is entitled to this fee only when a passenger actually travels on a plane from outside the U.S. into the U.S., the complaint said (Southwest Airlines Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00141).

The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations should not be allowed to intervene in GreenFirst Forest Products' case contesting the Commerce Department's decision not to start a changed circumstances review, Greenfirst argued in an April 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The intervention bid should be tossed since the committee ignores the action that is currently before the court and is arguing against a case that doesn't exist, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).