CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion on administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236). AEFTC is challenging the results of the administrative review that reversed an earlier CBP finding that Kingtom Aluminio had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic (see 2208090018). AEFTC argued that the results of the administrative review "undermined the evidence collected at the on-site verification and accepted Kingtom’s proffered reconciliation of its production data," which CBP had previously rejected. AEFTC asked the court to remand the matter to CBP.

The Court of International Trade agreed with the government that a nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026 (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). In an Aug. 12 opinion, Judge Jane Restani ruled in favor of the government's March 8 cross-motion for summary judgment (see 2203140007).

A law firm representing a plaintiff in a classification case at the Court of International Trade says that its client has become unresponsive and will again ask the court for permission to withdraw its representation as counsel for Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd., according to an Aug. 11 status report at CIT (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03776). The firm, Rock Trade Law, has previously tried to withdraw its representation over alleged outstanding legal fees but Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, Rock Trade Law could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified (see 2207110070).

Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds.

CBP has no basis to consider a country’s non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Aug. 11 in a widely anticipated decision involving cookware imported by Meyer.

The Court of International Trade ruled that a nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026. Continental Automotive Systems sued CBP over the classification and Judge Jane Restani ruled in favor of the government in the Aug. 12 decision.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

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.

Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds. Filed in response to the second CIT remands in cases involving two respective scope rulings that found the door thresholds from Columbia and Worldwide Door subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the remand redeterminations, filed under protest, only promise a future “revised scope ruling” if the trade court sustains. “Because it is not the actual scope ruling or determination Commerce plans to issue, it would not be self-effectuating should the court sustain it, and the agency decision that would follow if it were sustained would escape direct judicial review,” CIT said in the two nearly identical opinions.

The Court of International Trade was wrong to consider China's non-market economy status when analyzing whether to grant first sale treatment, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Aug. 11 ruling. The decision overturns and remands a 2021 CIT ruling that said that first sale treatment shouldn't apply for cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through a Chinese middleman because China is a NME.