The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 partly remanded and partly sustained a Commerce Department countervailing duty investigation of Malaysian wind towers. It sustained the use of a Singaporean Tier III electricity benchmark, but remanded to have Commerce explain how it now calculates entered value adjustments and address exporter CS Wind’s concern about Malaysian land benchmarks.

The U.S. filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss a case from importer Eteros Technologies and three of its executives alleging retaliation against the parties for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The government told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the plaintiffs "continue to conflate customs and immigration law" and failed to "plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 4 that the Court of International Trade erred in ruling that importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination's planning calendars are classified as diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Raymond Chen said the trade court violated the principle of stare decisis by going against the CAFC's 2002 ruling in Mead Corp. v. U.S., which interpreted the term "diary" as referring to "retrospective, not prospective" records. However, the Federal Circuit didn't settle on a final subheading for the products at issue, though it noted that the U.S. offered "some seemingly persuasive arguments" for why Blue Sky's goods fall under heading 4820 rather than under heading 4910 as calendars.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 dismissed a pair of cases for failure to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed time to do so. Both cases were brought by countervailing duty petitioners to contest the Commerce Department's final determination in the CVD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products from Canada (see 2510290053). The companies, Steel Dynamics and Nucor Corporation, are represented by different attorneys, and neither immediately responded to requests for comment (Steel Dynamics v. U.S., CIT # 25-00237) (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 25-00238).

A total of four hardwood plywood importers or exporters dropped their cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the Commerce Department's final results of the 2021-22 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hardwood plywood products from China.

A petitioner was wrong that the trade court made "several cascading errors” in its motion remanding a scope ruling on dual-stenciled pipe by failing to consider two other cases, the U.S. and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe each said in reply briefs Dec. 2 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).

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 Commerce Department unlawfully found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) was de facto specific based on heavy consumption by the chemical industry, exporter Kumho P&B Chemicals argued in a Dec. 2 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).

The Commerce Department failed to adequately explain its treatment of costs needed to convert steel plates into wind towers in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 2. Judge Leo Gordon said the U.S. provided "inadequate" explanation of the decision to use respondent Dongkuk’s reported conversion costs instead of the costs reported by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition.

In a Dec. 1 cross-motion for judgment, the U.S. said certain 2018 and 2019 cigarette entries imported by Scottsdale Tobacco didn’t qualify for a substitution of unused merchandise drawback because it hadn’t provided the necessary paperwork to prove its claim. Further, the government said, the drawback claim hadn’t automatically liquidated, either (see 2508250048) (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).