The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 said action camera-maker GoPro's imports of eight camera housing models are properly classified under the company's proffered Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 8529.90.86, free of duty. This subheading provides for "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus" of heading 8525. Judge Timothy Reif spent the bulk of the opinion discussing how the camera housings do not fit under the heading Customs used, 4202, which carries a 20% duty rate. Reif said the housings are not "cases" because they don't require the user to remove, modify or open to access the camera and because the housings boost the camera's functionality.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on an antidumping investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon noted that the court already rejected exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's argument that Commerce improperly rejected the company's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate, adding that Dillinger didn't properly show reconsideration of the issue is "appropriate." The judge also rejected petitioner Nucor's challenge to the adjustment to the model match methodology to include a separate quality code for sour transport plate in calculating Dillinger's margin.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against antidumping respondent Saffron Living Co. after the company withdrew from the case on remand. Sustaining the 760% AD rate against the company in the investigation on mattresses from Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said the remand results are upheld since no remaining party contests the mark. The case was on remand so Commerce could attempt to verify data from Saffron, though this became impossible after Saffron withdrew from the proceeding.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury findings on mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. Judge Stephen Vaden said ITC's errors, which included "mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery" regarding claims that the mattress industry was more segmented than the commission believed, were harmless. Despite the errors, the commission "made the necessary findings to have its decision supported by substantial evidence," the opinion said.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 18 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce adequately explained how its differential pricing analysis (DPA) methodology, used to root out "masked" dumping, is "reasonable." This methodology recently returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a separate case after the appellate court previously raised questions on the use of the DPA, specifically the use of the Cohen's d test.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's case challenging CBP's antidumping evasion finding against the company's cased pencil imports. Judge Mark Barnett said Royal Brush had to file a protest with CBP to allow the court to order reliquidation for its entries, which the agency illegally liquidated, so CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. The company imported five entries, two of which were assessed the AD duties and three of which were not.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In the remand results, Commerce continued to find that exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale during the review was not a bona fide sale, subjecting the company to the 251.65% China-wide AD rate. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's results weren't "legally inconsistent" and the agency wasn't barred by statute or its past practice from conducting a bona fide analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in an evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. In one, Far East American v. U.S., the Commerce Department reversed course and said that exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders at issue. In the other, Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an importer's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in an AD/CVD evasion case.