The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 granted the government's request for a remand so the Commerce Department can reconsider its use of Descartes data in calculating an ocean freight benchmark. Sending back the 2021 countervailing duty review on solar products from China, Judge Jane Restani said that on remand Commerce should consider the court's ruling in a separate case that addresses the use of Descartes data in this context, "as well the court's other rulings on the ocean freight issue."

The Commerce Department didn't give antidumping duty respondent PT. Asia Pacific Fibers a "reasonable" chance to address issues found by Commerce in the company's verification responses, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 12. Because Commerce never issued a verification report to Asia Pacific, Judge Richard Eaton said the agency must report the "methods, procedures, and results" of verification and let the company address any issues.

The Commerce Department asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand on Dec. 11 in a countervailing duty case so it can reconsider or further explain its calculations for the ocean freight benchmark in light of a recent CIT ruling questioning the use of Descartes data. The present suit concerns the 2021 administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from China in which Commerce only used Descartes data to set the benchmark, prompting the case from solar cell exporters, led by Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. (Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00219).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that imported industrial shredders that use blades to break up material carry no duties because they are classifiable as crushing and grinding machines.

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when it calculated antidumping duty respondent Wilmar's normal value, which was based off an export levy set by the Indonesian government. In a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12, Judge Richard Eaton said if the agency sticks with the particular market situation adjustment in the AD investigation on Indonesian biodiesel, it must explain why doing so doesn't lead to a double remedy, since Commerce countervailed the export levy in the related countervailing duty investigation.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 12 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation into polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. In the proceeding, the agency did not conduct on-site verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Richard Eaton found Commerce's failure to produce a verification report prior to issuing its final determination was illegal. As a result, Asia Pacific was "blindsided" by the use of adverse facts available, which led to a 26.07% AD rate.

The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the Dec. 11 text-only order, the trade court gave the parties until June 30, 2024, to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-03869).

A U.S. gun sights importer again argued in the Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 that its products should be classified under the tariff schedule as “apparatuses,” not as “light fittings,” because the latter provision didn't fully cover the sights’ use of ionizing radiation (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).

The Court of International Trade must dismiss a customs suit from importer Sucden Americas Corp. related to its sugar imports because the company didn't protest the liquidation of its entries or the denials of its post-importation preference claims, the U.S. said Dec. 11. Because of the failure to protest, the government said, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit under Section 1581(a) (Sucden Americas Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00228).