The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that large industrial shredders imported from Germany were classifiable as machines built for the purpose of “crushing and grinding,” despite CBP's arguments their use of blades for that purpose made them cutting machines instead. Granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it directed CBP to classify the shredders, imported by U.S. company Vecoplan, under the duty-free subheading 8479.82, rather than as "other" machines of subheading 8479.89, as CBP had classified them.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton sustained a particular market situation finding based on an export levy the Indonesian government set in 2015, as well as the agency's method for accounting for Renewable Identification Numbers, which decreased U.S. price. The judge sent back Commerce's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when setting respondent Wilmar Trading's normal value, as based on constructed value, to address the potential imposition of a double remedy. Eaton also sustained the use of adverse facts against exporter Musim Mas.

The Commerce Department illegally used just one respondent in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India covering entries in 2018-19, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 8. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. "is directly on point" in this case, because Commerce only reviewed exporter Chandan Steel Limited in a situation where multiple other companies exported the subject merchandise.

Importer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. voluntarily dismissed its customs classification suit at the Court of International Trade Dec. 7. The company contested CBP's denial of its protest claiming its mixtures for use in personal electronic vaporizing devices of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9280, dutiable at 5%, should be classified under subheading 8543.90.8850, free of duty. Counsel for R.J. Reynolds didn't respond to our request for comment (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00621).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Antidumping duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's fifth remand results in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood products from China. The court upheld Commerce'se separate rate calculation along with its decisions to exclude Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB from the AD order, and to include Sanfortune Wood and Longyuan Wood within the order (see 2310100045). As stated in the notice of appeal, the coalition will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00002).

A South Korean steel export company told the Court of International Trade that government intervention before and during its sale to new owners didn't constitute continuing government subsidies, saying the acquisition was still made at fair market value (KG Dongbu Steel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).

A Chinese automobile accessories exporter sought summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 in its case contesting CBP's imposition of 25% Section 301 tariffs on its products (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply to countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. adverse facts available related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. In Dec. 6 remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it tried to verify Ancientree's submissions regarding its customers' non-use of the EBCP but was unable to verify key information regarding non-use, leading to the continued AFA rate for the exporter (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00110).

The Commerce Department reverted to a previously used land benchmark calculation for its 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The court previously had sent back the land benchmark formula for violating the scope of an earlier remand order, telling Commerce to use the calculation from its first remand, in which the agency used a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis (CBRE) land report to set the benchmark (see 2311170034) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).