The U.S. asked for a voluntary remand at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Enforce and Protect Act case to discuss the legal effects of the Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. decision. In Royal Brush, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not granting it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). Importer Skyview Cabinet USA consented to the motion, while the petitioner, MasterBrand Cabinets, took no position (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).

CBP failed to apply an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative-granted Section 301 exclusion for "flexible pressure sensitive LCD display devices used as a surface for electronic wiring" to importer Kent Displays' merchandise, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 27 motion for summary judgment. Kent argued that its Model WT16312 Dashboard is the type of device as described by the exclusion and, as such, should be free of the 25% Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9013.80.7000 (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-00156).

A CBP headquarters decision on a protest is a “prior interpretive ruling or decision" that Ohio-based tent importer Under the Weather should have been able to rely on for tariff classification purposes, and as a result its classification challenge on backpacking tents shouldn't be dismissed, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Oct. 26 brief at the Court of International Trade (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 25 text-only order denied as moot the renewed motion by the U.S. to stay proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case, pending final resolution of a related matter. The present case, Far East American v. U.S., concerns an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion determination on two-ply hardwood products from China. The government asked for a stay while another case brought by Far East American went through the trade court. CIT ruled on that one in August, finding that the Commerce Department properly excluded hardwood plywood made by Vietnam Finewood using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China from the scope of the orders (see 2308220033). The stay in Far East American's second case was dropped following the ruling (Far East American v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).

Chinese exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals did not exhaust its administrative remedies in challenging calculations in an administrative review on activated carbon from China, but it can still raise an issue with the calculations because Commerce didn't finalize its methodology until the final results, the company argued in its Oct. 24 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00336).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, switched to using Brazilian surrogate value information to value antidumping duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s non-oak log inputs. Changing course as part of the 2019-20 AD review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Commerce switched to using Brazilian data, the primary surrogate nation, after the trade court rejected its initial use of Malaysian data for the factors of production (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).

A horizontal lawnmower engine shouldn't have been included under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China in a Commerce Department scope ruling because it was "clearly excluded" by the scope language, Zhejiang Amerisun Technology said in an Oct. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).

The Commerce Department improperly rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China as to exporters China Cornici Co. and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts Co., the two companies argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (China Cornici Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00216, -00217).

The Commerce Department flipped its position on remand to find that exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. didn't use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though it did continue to find that the exporter benefited from the provision of caustic soda and synthetic yarn for less than adequate remuneration (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).