The Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 flipped its decision on the classification of Honeywell's precut, radial, chordal and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes, finding on reconsideration that they are classifiable as fabrics under subheading 6307.90.98. Previously, Judge Mark Barnett had ruled the segments were "parts of an aircraft" under duty-free subheading 8803.20.00, but Barnett now found that, while the fabric pieces are finished parts of needled preforms, those preforms aren't finished parts, or blanks, of final brake discs. In doing so, he defined a "blank" as an article that undergoes finishing operations and not a substantial transformation.

CBP lacked the authority to reliquidate three drawback claims regarding three jewelry entries made by Importer Zale Delaware, since the drawback claims deemed liquidated, Zale argued in a Nov 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Zale Delaware v. United States, CIT # 25-00139).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 26 found provisions of CBP's Enforce and Protect Act regulations violate importers' due process rights. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said a provision which requires notice to the importer no later than five business days after day 90 of an EAPA investigation doesn't give the importer a "procedural due process right to notice" and a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" prior to the imposition of interim measures. She also found CBP erred in taking more than 15 days to open an investigation after receiving an allegation. Instead of vacating the investigation, however, the judge ordered CBP to "rescind the interim and final enforcement measures imposed on quartz countertop products imported by" Superior water Sept. 29, 2022, the date on which the court said CBP was required to start its investigation.

The Commerce Department permissibly changed its reason for using partial adverse facts available against antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai on remand in the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on Thai steel pipes and tubes, the U.S. told the Court of International trade on Nov. 24. The government said Commerce complied with the basic tenets of administrative law by taking new agency action on remand, adding that the agency properly applied partial AFA to find Saha Thai is affiliated with BNK Steel Co., a home market customer (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).

Steel plate exporters Hyundai Steel and Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a pair of reply briefs at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 20, contesting the Commerce Department's de facto specificity regarding South Korea's discounted off-peak electricity prices in the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Both companies contested Commerce's grouping of three unrelated industries to find that the steel industry received a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).

Importer USP Holdings on Nov. 20 voluntarily dismissed its case at the Court of International Trade regarding the applicability of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. USP brought its case last month to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel entries were improperly denied Section 232 exclusions. Scott Johnston, counsel for USP, said in an email that the company ultimately received relief administratively after CBP agreed to void the denials. However, the case was initially filed, since the relief "came right at/after the 180-day period to challenge the Protest denials in the CIT." (USP Holdings v. United States, CIT # 25-00227).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 20 scheduled a case concerning deemed liquidation of duty drawback claims for oral argument on Jan. 8 (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany after the parties challenging the proceeding withdrew their challenge following the trade court's decision last month in Domtar v. U.S.

Printing plate exporter Fujifilm, which also manufactures its product in the United States, argued again Nov. 17 that the International Trade Commission had failed to properly take into account a manufacturing plant it shuttered mid-injury investigation that caused it to increase its imports (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).

Antidumping duty petitioner American Paper Plate Coalition on Nov. 20 pushed back against respondent Fuzhou Hengli Paper's bid to add an "Excel datafile" to the record in the respondent's case against the AD investigation on paper plates from China on the basis that the document was never properly presented to the Commerce Department in the investigation (Fuzhou Hengli Paper v. United States, CIT # 25-00064).