The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 8 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of stainless steel flanges from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu found fault with Commerce's selection of only one individual respondent in the review, which led to the non-individually examined exporters receiving the lone respondent's 145.25% adverse facts available rate. Stanceu added that these companies were also assessed the AFA rate rate in violation of the statute's "reasonable method" requirement.

More than 50 agriculture interests, led by the National Corn Growers Association, asked the International Trade Commission to reconsider the impact of weather in 2019 when examining the phosphate purchases and import patterns of farmers, as the Court of International Trade instructed it to (see 2309190060). Flooding along the Mississippi River led to shipment problems for fertilizer, as well as fields that couldn't be planted.

A Chinese brick exporter alleged Dec. 4 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department is illegally expanding the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-imported magnesia carbon bricks (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The Commerce Department's finding that calcium glycinate is outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China was not backed by substantial evidence, AD/CVD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (GEO Specialty Chemicals v. United States, CIT # 23-00238).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafoods' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the court ruled Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif said that the agency's decision, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), doesn't constitute an "embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 6 order postponed a hearing on Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction in the company's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The parties asked for a delay in the hearing while they negotiate a process for the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to consider a request for removal from the UFLPA Entity List by Ninestar (see 2312050023) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument Dec. 6 on an appeal of a tariff classification case that ruled the wrapping, called “net wrap,” that certain farming machines use to package bales of hay were not considered agricultural equipment but rather textiles, carrying a higher duty (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 7 opinion said it does not have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafood's lawsuit challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application to import Chilean sea bass. Judge Timothy Reif said the preapproval application denial, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), "does not constitute an embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The U.S. implemented the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource (CAMLR) Convention, which sets conservation measures globally, via the AMLRCA.

Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.

A U.S. importer of 3D-printing pens argued in the Court of International Trade that its pens should be reclassified as toys, or otherwise as either mechanical heating devices or motorized hand tools. Such an action would reduce or eliminate the antidumping duty for its products (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT # 22-00178).