The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, who was sitting by designation, said the tariffs were a valid exercise of the government's authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C), which lets the U.S. Trade Representative "modify or terminate any action" taken under Section 301, where such action is "no longer appropriate."

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. While Blue Pipe consented to the application of the evasion determination to its goods after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's scope ruling including its dual-stenciled pipe in the order, the company said the determination should run from the start of the scope inquiry and not the start of the evasion investigation. Judge Timothy Reif rejected this request, finding that the Enforce and Protect Act's lack of a "reasonable notice" requirement and the fact that the AD order had no clear exclusions warrants applying the evasion determination to the start of the investigation.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 23 remanded CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions using forced labor. Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action" based on a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Reif likened the case to the court's previous consideration of a company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The judge said CBP's "conclusory, unsupported allegations" of forced labor made with regards to Kingtom are "readily distinguishable" from the "substantive statements" made in defense of the UFLPA Entity List addition.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 denied the government's motion for reconsideration in importer BASF's customs case on the classification of its fish oil ethyl ester concentrates. Judge Joseph Laroski rejected the government's claims that the court, in finding that the concentrates are "extracts of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603 (see 2506040076), overlooked that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and ignored BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids. Laroski said the court explicitly addressed the claim regarding meat extracts and considered BASF's stipulation.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for antidumping respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input in the 2019-21 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China after three prior remands. After Commerce repeatedly stuck by its decision to adjust Brazilian plywood data to remove data from Spain, the agency changed course in its third remand results, deciding to use "historical data for Brazilian plywood imports and period of review import data from Malaysia." No party challenged the result.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 upheld the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse antidumping duty respondent Dalmine with its affiliated input supplier Silcotub in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly followed the relevant statute in finding that Silcotub, a Romania-based company, can't be collapsed with Dalmine, since Silcotub isn't a producer of subject merchandise. The judge said that Commerce didn't impermissibly rely on this rationale post hoc, since it's an issue of "statutory construction," which is exempted from the bar against post hoc rationalizations.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases, on an expedited basis, concerning the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Briefing will conclude by Oct. 30 and the consolidated cases will be heard the first week of November. The high court decided to consolidate two cases on the issue, one of which was fully before the court on the merits following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling that the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl went beyond the president's authority in IEEPA. The second case, which was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was exclusively on whether IEEPA categorically allows for tariffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 8 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against respondent Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark held that Commerce reasonably found that Corinth failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in the review by not remedying deficiencies in its submitted cost reconciliation. The court added that the agency wasn't required to provide the respondent with an opportunity to comment on Commerce's analysis that led to the conclusion that Corinth's reported costs didn't reconcile with its financial accounting system. The opportunity to comment only applies to information submitted by interested parties, not Commerce's internal findings.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling's case against the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on large-diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani held that Pipe & Piling didn't follow the procedures under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, codified in 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(g)(3)(B), by failing to notify other interested parties of its intent to seek judicial review. Restani said this requirement is jurisdictional based on the "text and structure" and "operation and context" of the statute.

In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.