The Commerce Department properly found that Indian exporter Uttam Galva failed to report an affiliated cross-owned company in a countervailing duty proceeding, warranting the use of adverse facts available and a 588.43% CVD rate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 5 opinion. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said the exporter didn't show that the affiliated company's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to it, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a May 4 confidential order sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton said that he hopes to release the public version "in the near future" and that litigants should submit their reviews of the opinion to check for business confidential information by May 11. In the case, Commerce stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates (see 2202280052). However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00023).

The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

Washington state did not simply remove the threat of prosecution over the possession and distribution of marijuana and marijuana "paraphernalia," and in fact legalized it, making importer Keirton USA's import of marijuana "drug paraphernalia" legal, the importer argued in a May 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP tried to argue that the importation of such paraphernalia was illegal since Washington merely decriminalized possession of the materials rather than legalizing it. Keirton argued that this is untrue and that CBP admitted as much in a headquarters ruling (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).

The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).

The Court of International Trade remanded elements of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In an April 25 opinion made public May 3 submitted in two cases -- one brought by the sole mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other by Catfish Farmers of America, et al. -- Judge M. Miller Baker sent back parts of the review that deal with Commerce's position over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contradicting evidence over NTSF's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of NTSF's fillets.

The U.S. defended its expert witness in a customs classification dispute from a motion to remove the witness, Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos, in a May 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to give his opinion on a key question in the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials -- and that his testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving this key factual dispute in the matter at hand (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).

The Court of International in a May 2 order granted importer DSM Nutritional Products' consent motion to set up a test case in its customs spat over how to classify beta-carotene products. The motion places six other cases under one action -- five of which were brought by DSM and the other by American International Chemical. All the cases concern the tariff classification of beta-carotene products that CBP placed under HTS subheading 2106.90.99, which provides for "food preparations not elsewhere specific or included," dutiable at 6.4%. The importers argue for the products to be classified under subheading 2936.90.01, which provides for "provitamins," free of duty (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

CBP wrongly classified importer Mast Industries' ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra, Mast argued in a series of complaints on May 2 at the Court of International Trade. CBP liquidated the tops under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6109.10.00, which covers tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 18.3%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its tops should be classified under subheading 6114.20.00, which provides for other garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 10.8% to 11.1%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its cases were similar to a series of lawsuits filed by Victoria's Secret Direct wherein the court held that "knitted outer garments which provide significant body coverage and bust support are classifiable under heading 6114, HTSUS," the complaints said (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).

The Court of International Trade in a May 2 order rejected Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's bid to establish expedited briefing and consideration of its challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposit instructions. Judge Timothy Reif said the exporter failed to establish that "good cause" exists to expedite the case since the company's requested relief can be granted even after the deadline to withdraw its request for the fourth review of the AD order on softwood lumber products from Canada.