Changes made to the Court of International Trade's rules and fees took effect on May 3, according to an earlier notice of the amendments. Alterations to CIT Rules 3, 5, 15, Form 20 and Administrative Order 02-01 are now in force along with changes in fees made to the Schedule of Fees, Rule 74 and Form 10. The attorney admission certificate fee for the original admission of an attorney to practice was raised to $88, from $81.

The Department of Justice wants an entry of plywood imported from China scratched from a customs challenge in the Court of International Trade by BRAL Corporation, since the importer failed to file a protest against the entry's liquidation (BRAL Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00154). In a May 3 memo in support of a partial motion to dismiss, DOJ said the entry, one of 12 in dispute in the case, was reliquidated twice by CBP as the agency attempted to sort out the antidumping and countervailing duties applicable to the plywood imports. Since BRAL did not protest the second reliquidation, yet challenges it in court anyway, the entry should be dismissed from the case for lack of jurisdiction, DOJ said.

A nail importer and the Justice Department have agreed that judgment should be awarded in favor of the importer and the Section 232 tariffs on "derivatives" paid by the importer should be refunded, according to a joint status report filed April 30 (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 20-00037). Oman Fasteners and DOJ say the Court of International Trade's recent decision in a case involving PrimeSource is "parallel and substantially similar" to the main issue in Oman Fasteners' lawsuit (see 2104050049). Oman Fasteners and DOJ urged the court to rule in favor of the exporter on the question of the timeliness of the tariff expansion but to dismiss Oman Fasteners' remaining claims. Oman Fasteners also moved that the court “order other appropriate relief, including terminating Plaintffs' obligations to post continuous bonds to cover duties enacted pursuant to” the president's decision to expand the tariffs. Oman Fasteners also filed an unopposed motion for entry of final judgment in the case.

Cannabis processing equipment importer Root Sciences accused the Department of Justice of playing "judicial keep away" with particular customs cases, in an April 30 response to the government's motion to dismiss. Arguing to keep jurisdiction of its case under the Court of International Trade, Root Sciences made the case for why its challenge of the deemed exclusion of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine should remain in the trade court and why DOJ's arguments against that position are disingenuous.

The Court of International Trade on May 3 granted the Commerce Department’s request to reopen its 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Commerce had requested remand of the final results because a CIT decision issued in a separate case in December 2020 ruled against the agency’s application of a particular market situation finding under similar circumstances.

The Court of International Trade ruled that the Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to Chinese ribbon exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. in a countervailing duty administrative review. In an April 30 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu found that Commerce did not consider record evidence fairly when determining whether Yama received a subsidy from the Export Buyer's Credit Program from the Export-Import Bank of China. Remanding the case, Stanceu also held that Commerce failed again to consider all relevant record evidence in its decision to include subsidy rates to inputs of synthetic yarn and caustic soda in the CVD review.

The Court of International Trade granted the Justice Department's request for a voluntary remand in the antidumping duty investigation on polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Oman, in an April 30 order. OCTAL says it was not given the chance to comment during the investigation on a Commerce determination that the exporter was affiliated with one of its customers. OCTAL also said the trade court should give Commerce greater than 90 days for the remand in order to reopen the record in the investigation to account for new information. DOJ agreed that the case should be remanded, but not to an extension of the 90-day deadline to reopen the record. CIT's order says the remand must be filed within 90 days.

The Court of International Trade on April 29 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. Upholding the agency's application of adverse facts available to Indian steel producer Uttam Galva Steels in Commerce's 2016 review, Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to apply full AFA to Uttam Galva and not to the other mandatory respondent in the case, JSW, because Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry Ltd. (LSIL).

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department, finding that the agency's determination that wood flooring importer Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence. Judge Richard Eaton, in the April 29 opinion, also found that Commerce's application of its non-market economy policy to Jilin did not clear the proper evidentiary standard, launching into an elongated discussion of the policy's original intent.

A company must be able to prove that prices weren't distorted for transactions involving non-market economies (NMEs) when claiming first sale treatment, the Department of Justice said in an April 29 Court of International Trade filing (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 15-00142). DOJ's argument relies on a recent CIT decision involving imported Meyer cookware that said the involvement of Chinese companies made it difficult to determine whether a transaction is affected by non-market influence (see 2104200075). DOJ made the filing as part of a dispute over whether Imperia Trading, an importer of apparel made in China, can use the sale from a Hong Kong middleman company for appraisement.