The Court of International Trade issued two opinions in antidumping cases, one sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results, and another remanding certain issues back to the agency. The first decision concerned a challenge brought by Husteel to the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. As it has done many times before, the court had initially remanded Commerce's decision to make a particular market situation adjustment to Husteel's sales-below-cost test. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said this adjustment is not permissible under the law, so Commerce dropped it under protest, leading the judge to sustain the remand.

The Court of International Trade ordered on Oct. 18 that the U.S. must serve amended answers to 25 of importer Greenlight Organic's requests for admission in a case over the importer's alleged misclassification of imports to skirt duties. Granting Greenlight's motion to compel in part and denying it in part, CIT said that the U.S. only has to respond to 25 of Greenlight's 116 RFAs. CIT found that the U.S. did not have to respond to a host of other RFAs related to the date of discovery of Greenlight's alleged fraud since RFAs are to be used to identify undisputed facts, and the date of discovery of the fraud is not undisputed, the court said.

The Court of International Trade granted the Justice Department's motion to stay a case challenging the expansion of Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum "derivatives," in an Oct. 14 order, due in part, to the defendant's likelihood of succeeding on appeal. A majority panel at CIT found in the case that President Donald Trump's 2018 decision to expand the Section 232 duties onto the derivative products was made beyond the 105-day deadline laid out in the Section 232 statute. The court now recognizes that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S., permitting the president to take Section 232 tariff actions beyond procedural deadlines, indicates the DOJ's likelihood of succeeding in its appeal.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 granted in part, and denied in part, the Justice Department's motion to extend the discovery period in a dispute over the tariff classification of electrical conduit. DOJ moved to extend the discovery period for over a month to take the deposition of an expert witness. Plaintiff Shamrock Building Materials argued that this extension would prejudice it and should be denied due to DOJ's lack of diligence.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 14th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. After previously remanding Commerce's application of adverse facts available for lack of substantial evidence, Judge Miller Baker sustained the AFA application after Commerce switched out the grounds on which it based its AFA finding. Initially, Commerce applied AFA based on the respondent's reporting failures related to customer relationships and factors of production reporting issues, but now bases the finding to the respondent's failure to maintain source documents and control number reporting issues.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China covering entries from 2017, in an Oct. 12 order. Commerce, as it has done many times before, applied adverse facts available relating to its inability to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program by the two mandatory respondents' U.S. customers. Judge Timothy Reif issued lengthy remand orders to Commerce, instructing the agency, for instance, to explain how one of the respondent's questionnaire statements showing its non-use of the program are unverifiable by describing Commerce's step-by-step methodology for verifying non-use.

Only district courts, not the Court of International Trade, have the jurisdiction to hear cases over property seized by CBP, CIT said in an Oct. 7 order. Dismissing a case brought by Root Sciences over its seized "drug paraphernalia," Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the seized goods were never deemed excluded, there was no protestable action by CBP, precluding jurisdiction at CIT. Katzmann also held that questions about CBP's lack of notice to Root about the seizure should be decided by district courts and not CIT.

The Court of International Trade allowed a company accused of transshipping aluminum extrusions from China in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to participate in a case over the evasion finding, in an Oct. 7 order. Having previously ruled that the alleged transshipper, Kingtom Aluminio, could not intervene in the case for lack of a legally protectable interest in the case, Judge Richard Eaton ruled that Kingtom's contractual arrangements provide an interest in the transaction at issue that has a direct relationship to the litigation and the existing parties don't adequately represent Kingtom's interests.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 6 stuck down a Commerce Department scope ruling that found dual-stenciled pipe is covered by the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, remanding the ruling back to Commerce for further consideration. The plaintiff, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, argued that Commerce ignored overwhelming evidence that dual-stenciled line pipe was intentionally excluded from the ITC's injury determination underlying the AD order. Judge Stephen Vaden found that no Thai manufacturer made dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe at the time of the AD order, so it couldn't have been included in the scope of the order.

The Court of International Trade granted an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of Moroccan exporter OCP S.A.'s phosphate fertilizers in an Oct. 4 order. The key issue before the court over the injunction was its length. The U.S., while agreeing to the injunction in principle, thought the injunction should only run to the end of the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on the fertilizers -- a review that had yet to commence. OCP pushed for an indefinite injunction against liquidation. The court sided with OCP, finding that the exporter has sufficiently showed that it will suffer irreparable harm if the court enters an injunction that doesn't extend to entries affected by this litigation and occurring after the end of the 2021 calendar year -- the date at which automatic liquidation would begin.