The Court of International Trade rejected on Feb. 18 a group of Chinese exporter's arguments that a glass input for aluminum extrusions is not countervailable since it ties in to non-subject merchandise. Since the plaintiffs' arguments are "largely conclusory statements" and not backed by evidence on the record, Judge Leo Gordon said that the Commerce Department properly found that the glass inputs were countervailable.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 ruled that Formpack, a flexible packaging material imported by Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlignen, is classifiable as "other" backed aluminum foil, rather than aluminum foil decorated with a pattern or design. Siding with the plaintiff, Judge Gary Katzmann said that Formpack is classified under the duty free subheading 7607.20.50. CBP originally classified the entries under subheading 7607.20.10, which is dutiable at 3.7% and provides for aluminum foil "covered or decorated with a character, design, fancy effect or pattern." Since the text on Formpack is communicative text not decorative, it doesn't belong under CBP's subheading, Amcor successfully argued.

The Supreme Court should deny a bid to review the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff provision, the U.S. said in a Feb. 17 reply brief. Arguing that greater deference and flexibility are accorded the president in a national security context, the Department of Justice told the nation's highest court that the president lawfully adjusted tariff action under Section 232 beyond procedural timelines. The Supreme Court also previously ruled that Section 232 isn't an improper delegation of authority and the petitioners haven't shown this decision to be wrongly decided, the brief said (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, U.S. #21-721).

A lawsuit at the Court of International Trade filed by an individual who failed their customs broker license test was assigned to Judge Mark Barnett, in a Feb. 17 order. The case was filed by Shuzhen Zhong (see 220211002) without an attorney and requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. While no attorney is listed for Zhong, Luke Mathers of the Justice Department's International Trade Field Office appeared for the government (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

Products from importer SMA Surfaces meet all four of the criteria for an exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China, and the Commerce Department never addressed "unrefuted evidence" which shows that one of its products satisfies the key fourth criteria for this exclusion, the importer argued in a Feb. 16 brief at the Court of International Trade (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT #21-00399).

The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 18 the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China brought by plaintiffs led by Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. After an initial remand, the court said that Commerce properly countervailed subsided glass. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce couldn't countervail glass inputs sold for less than adequate remuneration since the glass was tied to non-subject merchandise. Judge Leo Gordon said that the plaintiffs pointed out nothing in the record to prove this fact, thus backing Commerce's position.

Antidumping respondent Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V., along with its U.S. affiliate, will appeal a December Court of International opinion that found that the Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid. According to the Feb. 16 notice of appeal, Deacero will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court also said that Commerce does not have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to AD administrative procedures (see 2112200051). The case concerns an AD administrative review on rebar from Mexico (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, CIT #20-03924).

Tire exporter Pirelli Tyre signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that said the company properly showed that it wasn't under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an AD review period. Pirelli, a consolidated plaintiff in the AD action, sued to contest Commerce's failure to make this determination (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00079).

The International Trade Commission can't use export data when making a critical circumstances determination to find whether a surge in imports undermines the remedial effect of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders in question, plaintiff MTD Products said in a Feb. 11 reply brief (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

Both CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate and its Office of Regulation and Rulings failed to make a factual finding when it said that importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers and Dominican producer Kingtom Aluminio said. In two motions for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs and Kingtom both argued that CBP skirted the evidentiary standard, instead basing its conclusion on a vague reference to Kingtom's ties to China and discrepancies between the importers' and Kingtom's records (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).