The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that hardwood plywood made by the Vietnam Finewood Co. using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China is outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said that the scope decision complies with his previous order instructing Commerce to issue a scope ruling in line with the "unambiguous terms" of the orders' scope.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld CBP's remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found importer Aspects Furniture International evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP properly relied on statements from CBP employees, which revealed that these employees saw workers in the Chinese manufacturing plants destroying documents. As a result of this conduct observed during verification, the agency levied adverse inferences against the importer. The judge said the adverse inferences and the overall evasion finding were proper given not only the document destruction but the many discrepancies found in Aspects' entry documents when compared to other evidence.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce legally found the provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. to be a countervailable benefit and found the reduction for sewerage fees program was not countervailable.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's decision on remand to stick by its finding that questionnaires issued in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping investigation on forged steel fittings from India satisfied the statute's verification requirement. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency failed to consider the interests of petitioners in relying on Commerce's consistent past practice along with possible alternatives. The judge said the agency must explain what other steps closer to an on-site verification it has considered now and in 2020 and why those were rejected.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 17 again declined to allow a government counterclaim to proceed in an importer's denied protest case, redesignating it as a defense, but Judge Gary Katzmann appeared to leave the door open for the government to collect additional duties from the importer. In the case, which involves the classification of dried botanicals, CIT for the fourth time in just over two years said the government can't file counterclaims in cases brought by importers to challenge denied protests. However, should the government convince the court of its preferred classification as a defense, importer Second Nature Designs "may be liable to the Government for increased duties," Katzmann said in a footnote to the opinion.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 denied a motion by importer Wanxiang America to dismiss a penalty case related to misclassification and failure to pay antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the importer's failure to abide by a CBP notice of action could be considered negligence or gross negligence, even though the notice of action wasn't binding on Wanxiang's subsequent entries. Katzmann also found misclassifications can constitute false statements subject to Section 1592 penalties, though he noted Wanxiang's "well-founded concerns" that mere classification disagreements shouldn't rise to the level of a penalty. He also declined to dismiss a count of negligence based on Wanxiang's arguments that a key scope ruling identifying the importer's goods a subject to antidumping duties had not yet been released.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case in which the agency continued to rely on respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data for prime and non-prime plate. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce's reliance on the exporter's normal books and records as facts otherwise available was not contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case, despite that court finding the respondent's normal books did not reasonably reflect the costs linked with the production of other merchandise. Katzmann said evidence shows that "more than a mere scintilla" supports Dillinger's normal books and records as being "probative" of the missing cost information.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from India. Commerce said on remand that a questionnaire, issued in lieu of on-site verification for sole mandatory respondent Bharat Forge Limited, properly replaced on-site verification after initially saying it did not. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency's decision does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, which said that on remand, an agency can either take new action or further explain its position. Vaden ruled that Commerce cannot "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by reversing itself and asserting that it verified Bharat's information.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 3 opinion reversed the Court of International Trade's decision tossing a $5.7 million customs penalty suit from the U.S. against importer Katana Racing for lack of jurisdiction. The trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver, making the government's suit untimely. However, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit" and instead provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived. While the appellate court said CIT erred in tossing the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Katana is still free to claim that its statute of limitations waiver was void as part of an affirmative defense.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said the respondents' quantitative analyses were deficient, but because the agency had not told the respondent that it required more information, it granted the offsets. Judge Timothy Reif sent back the case "in view of Commerce's failure in the instant case to comply with its" statutory obligations.