The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 held that a CBP HQ ruling on see-through pop-up tent "pods" wasn't subject to notice and comment requirements because a prior protest approval on the goods wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling or decision." Judge Timothy Reif said the protest approval wasn't the result of "considered deliberations" because CBP's Regulations and Rulings office wasn't involved, and that the decision didn't have "prospective effect" and wasn't "interpretive."

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 rejected the motions for judgment from both importer HyAxiom and the government on the proper classification of PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the court must first resolve whether the goods fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8405, which cover gas or water gas generators and is the heading preferred by HyAxiom. The judge said the court must determine whether the PC50's "primary function" is as a gas or water gas generator -- something neither party has sufficiently answered. As a result, both parties' summary judgment motions were denied.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 21 granted the government's motion to serve German paper exporter Koehler through its U.S. counsel in a suit looking to get Koehler to pay over $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court's Rule 4(e), which allows service on an individual in a foreign country "by other means not prohibited by international agreement," allows service through a foreign company's U.S.-located counsel. The judge added that international comity doesn't bar this type of service and that service through Koehler's U.S. counsel wouldn't strip the company of its due process rights.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce failed to adequately respond to the petitioners' claim that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in India. However, the judge sustained Commerce's decision not to offset Megaa Moda's financial expenses by money earned from its "interest subvention program" and fixed deposits with Indian bank Federal Bank Limited.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on solar products from China. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's decision not to adjust exporter Trina Solar Co.'s U.S. price by the amount of six programs the agency countervailed in the most recent accompanying countervailing duty review. Kelly found that Commerce failed to explain its decision that the six programs weren't export contingent.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. Judge Jane Restani said jurisprudence from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test doesn't compel the revocation of the AD order for exporter Resolute FP Canada. The judge held that since neither court has rejected the standard use of the test, Commerce wasn't required to revert Resolute's dumping margin to zero in the underlying investigation.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's inclusion of the alleged subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in exporter Risen Energy Co.'s countervailing duty margin in the 2020 review of the order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Jane Restani said that while there is a gap in the record due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate, Risen failed to fill the gap because it submitted only nonuse certificates from all but one of its customers. However, the judge said it's unreasonable for Commerce to not prorate Risen's CVD rate for the EBCP based on all the sales the company was able to verify didn't benefit from the EBCP.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against respondent Unicatch Industrial Co. in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in submitting cost reconciliation information. The court also said the 78.17% petition rate was realistic as the AFA rate since two sales from Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, the other respondent, exceeded this rate. Lastly, the court said Commerce properly used the expected method in setting the average rate for non-reviewed respondents at 35.3%.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on narrow woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's decision on remand to drop the subsidy rate pertaining to exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge also said the agency properly countervailed the Chinese government's provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda, two ribbon inputs, for less than adequate remuneration. The court sustained Commerce's use of adverse facts available related to these two programs due to the Chinese government's failure to respond to the best of its ability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 13 again said President Donald Trump didn't violate the Trade Act of 1974 when he revoked a Section 201 tariff on bifacial solar panels. The court previously sustained the move in a November 2023 decision (see 2311130031). Partially granting a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel reconsideration, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark conducted a de novo review of the president's interpretation of the applicable statute allowing for the tariff action instead of reviewing whether the interpretation was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute. However, the panel said that the case isn't an "appropriate vehicle" for overruling the court's "clear misconstruction" standard of review for presidential decisions under the Trade Act.