The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's switch to neutral facts available from adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review due to the agency's failure to provide adequate assistance to a small, first-time respondent. The plaintiff -- Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co., referred to as the Elque Group -- challenged the final results of the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. In the court's first opinion in the case, Judge Gary Katzmann said that the Elque Group gave proper notice of its need for help, which Commerce failed to give. Commerce's move away from AFA will cause Elque Group's dumping margin to fall to 27.66%, from 110.9%.

The Court of International Trade denied importer Strategic Import Supply's motion for a reconsideration of its case over the proper countervailing duty rate for its tire imports in a Sept. 20 order. Finding that Strategic Import Supply didn't file a timely protest of CBP's decision to liquidate the imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, Judge Stephen Vaden again dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Strategic Import Supply sought reconsideration after CBP granted a nearly identical protest to the one subject to Vaden's previous dismissal.

The Commerce Department was wrong to exclude sales made by an antidumping review respondent that were further assembled in a third country before being shipped to the U.S., in an AD duty review, plaintiff JA Solar said in its Sept. 15 complaint to the Court of International Trade. Commerce had "copious" amounts of evidence showing that the respondent knew that the final destination of the goods was the U.S., meaning the agency should have included them in the review, the complaint said (JA Solar International Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00514).

Engine manufacturing giant Cummins Inc. launched a challenge to CBP's denial of its protest claiming its turbocharger housings qualify for a specific Section 301 tariff exclusion, in a Sept. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The challenge seeks to prove that Cummins' imported "housings" or "covers" that are assembled into turbochargers quality for the compressor housings exclusion laid out by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Cummins Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00517).

The U.S. and two respondents in an antidumping duty review backed the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation determination on South Korean steel, in recently filed briefs, arguing the agency relied on what evidence it had after the Court of International Trade ruled against evidence upon which it had originally relied to make the finding (SeAH Steel Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).

The Court of International Trade sustained the remand results in two similar antidumping cases after the Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. The court issued two opinions on Sept. 17, both in cases brought by steel exporter Saha Thai Steel PIpe Public Co. which challenged the 2016-17 and 2017-18 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued three prior remands between the two cases, finding that the PMS adjustment was contrary to law.

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

The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion for extension of the time of service in a penalty action against Kevin Ho, the owner and director of importer Atria, in a Sept. 14 order. After being briefed by both Ho and DOJ, Judge Timothy Reif also decided not to quash service even though the U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint (United States v. Chu-Chiang “Kevin” Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).

CBP recently updated its frequently asked questions about the withhold release order aimed at silica-based products from China that made a first mention of de minimis considerations (see 2108030026). CBP's revised response to a question about whether finished products containing a small percentage of silica-based products subject to the WRO now says the agency “recognizes there may be some very fact-specific instances, where the question of the contribution of prohibited labor to the whole of a product (from a quantitative and a qualitative perspective) is something that a court might consider with respect to the statutory intent of Section 1307 of Title 19, United States Code.” The updated version also removes any mention of the phrase “de minimis” and an example of a de minimis contribution.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, in a Sept. 14 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce's use of mandatory respondent Unicatch Industrial Co.'s above-cost home market sales to calculate normal value was legal, the agency's decision to not include Unicatch's antidumping duty deposits in the company's freight revenues was proper, and that Commerce's move to increase Unicatch's cost of production to account for purchases from an affiliated supplier at less than market value was appropriate.