The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 12 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation into polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. In the proceeding, the agency did not conduct on-site verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Richard Eaton found Commerce's failure to produce a verification report prior to issuing its final determination was illegal. As a result, Asia Pacific was "blindsided" by the use of adverse facts available, which led to a 26.07% AD rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton sustained a particular market situation finding based on an export levy the Indonesian government set in 2015, as well as the agency's method for accounting for Renewable Identification Numbers, which decreased U.S. price. The judge sent back Commerce's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when setting respondent Wilmar Trading's normal value, as based on constructed value, to address the potential imposition of a double remedy. Eaton also sustained the use of adverse facts against exporter Musim Mas.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that large industrial shredders imported from Germany were classifiable as machines built for the purpose of “crushing and grinding,” despite CBP's arguments their use of blades for that purpose made them cutting machines instead. Granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it directed CBP to classify the shredders, imported by U.S. company Vecoplan, under the duty-free subheading 8479.82, rather than as "other" machines of subheading 8479.89, as CBP had classified them.

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.

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 6 opinion sustained CBP's classification of knit gloves with a partial plastic coating under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Judges Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto sided with the government over importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co., which championed subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Citing heading 6116's Explanatory Note, the court said this heading, which covers "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted," includes knitted gloves with non-knit components. The court rejected the importer's claims that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casings, precluded classification under Section XI.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 opinion granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment on the classification of various nutritional preparations meant for use by patients with medical conditions. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained CBP's classification of the five imported goods at issue, all medical foods intended for infants and toddlers, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4%, instead of importer Nutricia North America's preferred subheading of 3004.50.5040, free of duty. The judge said the five products are "food preparations" fitting under heading 2106 and not "medicaments" as listed under heading 3004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 4 opinion sustained the Court of International Trade's ruling upholding the Commerce Department's 2018 antidumping review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand. During litigation on the review, the agency removed a particular market situation adjustment it initially made to respondents Saha Thai Steel and Thai Premium Pipe's costs of production to determine normal value as part of the sales-below-cost test. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the Federal Circuit's ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which made the adjustment illegal. Petitioner Wheatland Tube attempted to distinguish the present case from Hyundai Steel by claiming the PMS adjustment was a constructed value calculation. The court disagreed, saying Hyundai Steel is controlling.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion denied exporter Risen Energy Co.'s bid to amend its complaint in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The exporter tried to add a claim that China's Article 26(2) tax program is not a de jure specific countervailable subsidy following a CIT ruling in a separate case brought by Risen, in which the court said the program is not de jure specific. Judge Jane Restani said that because the issue was not raised administratively at any point, Risen now could not bring the claim before the court. Waiving the exhaustion requirement is "inappropriate" because the exporter does not raise a "pure question of law" but one that requires additions to the record, Restani said.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding "embargoes or other quantitative restrictions." While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.