The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions when it found that certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Justice Department said in a pair of Feb. 14 reply briefs. Filing its responses in two separate cases, one brought by Columbia Aluminum Products and the other by Worldwide Door Components, Commerce said that it relied on CIT's rulings to find that the plaintiffs' door thresholds qualified for the finished merchandise exclusion while ignoring prior authorities that established that a subassembly could not qualify for the exclusion (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 14 order granted an injunction until the conclusion of litigation against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' mattress imports. The Department of Justice pushed back against that timeline. It urged an end date of April 30, the same end date as the first administrative review period of the antidumping duty order the plaintiffs are contesting. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the plaintiffs, Best Mattresses International and Rose Lion Furniture International, sufficiently showed a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case and that they would be irreparably harmed without the indefinite injunction.

The Court of International Trade granted Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's motions for judgment in two cases on the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey. Celik challenges the Commerce Department's refusal to accept questionnaire responses that were filed 21 and 87 minutes late in the AD and CVD cases, respectively. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the rejections amounted to an abuse of discretion and imposed a "draconian penalty" on Celik for a "minor and inadvertent technical error by its counsel that had no appreciable effect on the" investigations.

A customs broker license test taker filed suit at the Court of International Trade after two appeals of her final score on the Customs Broker License Examination failed to result in a passing grade. Filing the case without an attorney, Shuzhen Zhong wants the court to review the six questions she appealed to CBP, of which she only received credit for one upon reconsideration. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal (Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

The Commerce Department reasonably derived the separate rate respondents' dumping margin in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging the mandatory respondents' zero percent and adverse facts available rates, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Celtic Co. and Taraca Pacific, the coalition said that Commerce properly relied on the information laid out in the petition to derive the rates since it was already vetted by Commerce as part of the pre-initiation phase of the investigation (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The Court of International Trade granted Best Mattresses International Company and Rose Lion Furniture International Company an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of their mattress entries in a Feb. 14 order. The injunction bid faced opposition from the DOJ, which argued that the injunction should only run until April 30, 2022 -- the end date of the first administrative review of the AD order in question. The companies are plaintiffs in a challenge to the AD order on mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the injunction was justified since the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm and success on the merits of the case.

The effective dates of the Commerce Department's partial revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from China ran contrary to the agency's stated practice, because they excluded unliquidated entries that weren't subject to the final results of an administrative review or automatic liquidation at the time, importer Source Global said in a Feb. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Source Global, PBC v. United States, CIT #22-00009).

A CBP protest was not needed to establish jurisdiction in two companies' challenge to CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion since the challenge is not an entry-specific matter, the companies, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel, said in a Feb. 7 brief. Replying to the U.S.'s arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff-appellants said that their challenge has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction provision, since the action relates to CBP's imposition of the requirements of an "inapt statute" to all the entries excluded from tariff lists 2 and 3 (ARP Materials Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 consolidated two cases filed by Incase Design Group. The order follows a motion by Incase to combine the cases because it would "promote administrative and judicial efficiency." Both cases involve the same product and are being considered by the same judge. They also concern the same underlying issue: whether "the proper classification of sports armband cell phone holders" is under subheading 4202.99.90 as "... containers ... of sheeting of plastics ... ," dutiable at 20%, or under subheading 3926.90.99 as "other articles of plastics ..., ," dutiable at 5.3%. Judge Stephen Vaden granted Incase's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." The combined cases proceed as number 16-00267.

The Commerce Department excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings because the Court of International Trade left no alternative, Commerce said in a Feb. 7 brief. Responding to U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions arguments in a reply brief at CIT, Commerce said that even though the court initially agreed that the plain scope language included Star Pipe's flanges in the AD order, it said this was insufficient to include the flanges (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).