Three wildlife advocacy groups urged the Court of International Trade to compel the U.S. to comply with its settlement agreement with the groups by requiring the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to bar the importation of fish and fish products from all harvesting nations that don't meet Marine Mammal Protect Act (MMPA) standards (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).

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. 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 Court of International Trade denied a group of importers' motion for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of their entries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on the basis that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of the entries if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs.

The Court of International Trade approved amendments to one of its practice rules and two of its forms on Dec. 9. The changes, which affect Rule 74 and Forms 10 and 13, will become effective Jan. 5, the court said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 issued a statutory injunction against the liquidation of any unliquidated entries of importer IPG Photonics' heat sink models, while the importer challenges the Commerce Department's antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders scope ruling on IPG's products (IPG Photonics v. United States, CIT # 25-00212).

In two briefs Dec. 8, U.S. shrimp producers again supported the International Trade Commission's finding that shrimp imports from Ecuador, India and Vietnam injured the U.S. industry (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00029) (Seafood Exporters Association of India v. United States, CIT # 25-00031) (Shrimp Committee of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers v. United States, CIT # 25-00032).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for ocean freight charges and its valuation of minor fabricated components in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld the agency's decisions as reasonable after initially remanding both selections.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the trade court's previous decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Although Judge Timothy Reif said he made a mistake of fact in the initial decision, the mistake was a "harmless error," and that no mistake of law was made.

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.