The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 remanded the Commerce Department's 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on rebar from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce failed to support its finding that exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's exemption from Turkey's 0.2% Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax on foreign exchange transactions was de jure specific, noting the agency didn't establish the tax exemption was limited by enterprise or industry. Katzmann also sent back Commerce's rejection of a report prepared by Cushman & Wakefield to value land used for free by Kaptan's affiliated supplier. The judge said Commerce didn't base its rejection of the report "on a sound legal basis."

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 15 partially granted importer Cozy Comfort Co.'s motions to exclude the testimony of witnesses offered by the government in a customs classification spat on The Comfy, a wearable blanket. Judge Stephen Vaden said the testimony of fashion industry professional Patricia Concannon should be limited to topics pertaining to the "sale, marketing, and merchandising of apparel," as opposed to the design of The Comfy. The judge also limited the testimony of CBP national import specialist Renee Orsat, ruling that she "may not testify about opinions she formed during the Customs' classification process." In addition, Vaden denied the government's bid to exclude expert testimony from outerwear designer James Crumley, who was offered as a witness by Cozy Comfort. The judge rejected the government's attacks on Crumley's reliability as a witness.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia, dropping the AD rate for respondent PT. Asia Pacific Fibers TBK from 26.07% to 9.2%. On remand, Commerce allowed Asia Pacific to fix errors in its submissions. The respondent provided requested translations and a "narrative explanation of its reporting methodologies," allowing the agency to reconcile the company's sales and cost reporting. No party contested the result.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 rejected the Commerce Department's use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Nippon Steel for failing to submit certain U.S. sales data from an affiliated buyer in the third review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to grapple with the company's claim that Japanese law barred it from obtaining the information, undercutting the notion that Nippon Steel failed to act to the best of its ability in responding to the agency's requests. Vaden also sustained Commerce's deduction of Section 232 duties from Nippon Steel's U.S. price in the third, fourth and fifth reviews of the AD order, noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already sustained the agency's ability to take such action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Oct. 10 that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving was trying to avoid review by a binational panel by bringing its antidumping duty case to the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) jurisdiction rather than 1581(c). It said that the “true nature” of the exporter’s action was opposition to an AD rate it received in 2019, not the Commerce Department’s subsequent instruction to CBP, as J.D. Irving didn’t participate in the 2020 review. It also said that a binational panel had the power to provide J.D. Irving relief, if warranted (J.D. Irving v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's inclusion of importer Printing Textile's "Canvas Banner Matisse" under the scope of the antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu held that Commerce's interpretation of one "ambiguous" sentence in the scope language wasn't "per se unreasonable" and that the agency didn't fail to consider or misapply the (k)(1) factors at issue. The judge added that the order's language wasn't constitutionally vague to the point where an importer of the canvas banner wouldn't reasonably expect its products not to be covered by the order.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 denied importer Interglobal Forest's application for attorney's fees in a case that saw CBP reverse its finding that various importers, including Interglobal, evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said Interglobal wasn't the "prevailing party" in the case because CBP reversed its evasion finding after the Commerce Department altered its scope determination following a separate case at CIT. The judge added that because CBP is mandated to rely on other agencies' determinations, the agency's position was "substantially justified."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 found that the Court of International Trade erred in rejecting the Commerce Department's exclusion of door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said that Commerce adequately found on remand at the trade court that the door thresholds are subassemblies, barring them from being considered under the finished merchandise exclusion from the orders.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 4 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to include certain products from exporter Tecnicas de Fluidos (TEFLU) within the scope of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico in the 2020-21 review of the order. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce must answer whether TEFLU's "further manufactured products" are "downstream products" outside the order's scope. The agency must lay out "the degree to which" the exporter's goods were processed by various methods and whether each good was further processed, instead of basing its determination "solely on the physical and chemical composition" of the products. Choe-Groves added that Commerce must assess whether TEFLU's goods are within an industry investigated by the International Trade Commission in its corresponding injury analysis.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.