The Court of International Trade on Dec. 16 for a second time remanded the Commerce Department's scope ruling excluding certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said two of the (k)(1) sources used by Commerce, the International Trade Commission report and AD petition, don't support the agency's conclusion. The judge instructed Commerce to review the (k)(2) sources, including the "applicable industry standards" and "declarations from domestic industry executives." Choe-Groves also remanded the agency's substantial transformation analysis to determine the goods at issue's country of origin.

The Commerce Department properly found on remand that certain reductions in tax fines and penalties received by countervailing duty respondent OCP weren't de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 16. Sustaining the 2020-21 CVD review of Moroccan phosphate fertilizers, Judge Timothy Stanceu said applying de facto specificity to the program at issue would cut against the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, since it's widely available in the Moroccan economy.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 denied a motion for an injunction stopping liquidation of entries from a group of importers that filed challenges to International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that an injunction is unnecessary because the trade court has the authority to reliquidate finally liquidated entries from the importers that filed suit under the court's 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) jurisdiction if the Supreme Court invalidates the tariffs. The judges also noted the government's commitment that it won't fight against CIT's ability to order refunds, finding the U.S. is barred from changing its position in the future.

The Commerce Department interpreted and applied its regulations contrary to Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 when it rejected petitioner Catfish Farmers of America's ministerial error allegation in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 15. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce erred in only allowing the petitioner to raise ministerial error allegations regarding the final determination that couldn't have been raised in the petitioner's case brief, finding that this cut against the "express requirement of Section 751(h)." However, the judge did uphold the agency's decision not to use facts otherwise available against respondent CASEAMEX related to its reporting of its packing costs.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the court's decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Judge Timothy Reif said that while he did mistakenly say that the "allegation assessment" was insufficient to support the forced labor finding, the mistake was a "harmless error," since it's clear from context that the court was actually referring to CBP's on-site verification report. Reif added that no mistake of law was made regarding his decision to vacate the finding, rather than remanding without vacatur, since the U.S. didn't respond to Kingtom's request for vacatur.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's decisions to use Maersk price quotes to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 5 held that the countervailing duty statute doesn't require the Commerce Department "to compare the enterprise or industry at issue with all users of the subsidy." Interpreting the statute, which says Commerce can find de facto specificity if a company or industry is "a predominant user of the subsidy," Judges Jimmie Reyna, Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen said the agency has "reasonable flexibility in determining the comparator group." Commerce's decisions to limit the comparator group is reviewed for its reasonableness, the court said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 partly remanded and partly sustained a Commerce Department countervailing duty investigation of Malaysian wind towers. It sustained the use of a Singaporean Tier III electricity benchmark, but remanded to have Commerce explain how it now calculates entered value adjustments and address exporter CS Wind’s concern about Malaysian land benchmarks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 4 that the Court of International Trade erred in ruling that importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination's planning calendars are classified as diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Raymond Chen said the trade court violated the principle of stare decisis by going against the CAFC's 2002 ruling in Mead Corp. v. U.S., which interpreted the term "diary" as referring to "retrospective, not prospective" records. However, the Federal Circuit didn't settle on a final subheading for the products at issue, though it noted that the U.S. offered "some seemingly persuasive arguments" for why Blue Sky's goods fall under heading 4820 rather than under heading 4910 as calendars.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 remanded the Commerce Department's treatment of the costs to convert steel plates into wind towers in the 2021-22 antidumping review of utility wind scale towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce failed to adequately explain why it chose to accept respondent Dongkuk's reported conversion costs instead of the costs reported by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition. The judge rejected the government's "circular reasoning" that Dongkuk reported its conversion costs "based on its normal books and records," and the judge held that the agency didn't explain why the petitioner's costs analysis using the first control number characteristic, tower sections, is "inappropriate."