The Court of International Trade in a June 21 opinion rejected the U.S. motion to dismiss one count of a suit brought by Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The plaintiffs challenged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 findings that New Zealand's standards for its West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries were comparable with U.S. regulations. The U.S. said that because the comparability findings expired, the claims were moot. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while injunctive relief against the findings were moot, one element of Sea Shepherd's argument was live because it's capable of repetition and evading review.

The Court of International Trade in a June 20 opinion upheld CBP's finding that importer Skyview Cabinet evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that, contrary to Skyview's claims, CBP supported its conclusion with substantial evidence and that Skyview failed to show its goods were made in Malaysia. Vaden added that CBP properly used adverse facts available given foreign manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen's refusal to provide any requested information and that the agency did not violate the company's due process rights.

The Court of International Trade granted three conservation groups' bid to dismiss a suit seeking to compel the Interior Department to respond to a request to certify Mexico had not done enough to curb illegal fishing and trade of the totoaba fish, further threatening the endangered vaquita porpoise. The conservation groups and Interior reached a settlement in April, under which the agency made the certification, which allows the president to impose restrictions on trade with Mexico.

The Court of International Trade, in a pair of opinions authored by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, and sustained Commerce's remand results in a suit on the antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.

The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained Commerce's classification of surrogate values for aluminum dross/ash byproduct and rolling oil and rolling oil additive inputs, along with the agency's selection of Maersk data to calculate freight costs. The judge also upheld Commerce's decision not to grant a double remedies adjustment for subsidies to inputs that respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. said were countervailable. Lastly, Baker rejected Zhongji's bid to have Commerce modify its liquidation instructions to include the phrase "resold or imported."

The Court of International Trade on June 7 remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation on raw honey from Argentina. CIT Judge Claire Kelly remanded the department's decision to use Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for Argentinian beekeeper's production costs and its decision to compare Nexco's third-country sales and U.S. sales. However, the court did agree with Commerce's decision to compare Nexco's costs on a monthly basis for the purposes of the sales-below cost test and sustained that aspect, saying that Commerce reasonably explained its decision.

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on metal lockers from China. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the investigation so that Commerce can reconsider its treatment of surrogate company Ayes Celikhasir's "incentive income," "shipping revenues," "rental income" and "interest income" when calculating surrogate financial ratios. The judge sustained Commerce's treatment of certain other real operating income categories. Barnett also upheld the agency's determination that Ayes made comparable merchandise with the goods under investigation while plaintiff List Industries' preferred surrogate company, Grupo Carso, did not.

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of CBP's classification of importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods' 14 different mixtures of frozen fruit, five of which have frozen vegetable ingredients. Judge Stephen Vaden said the merchandise is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811 since the term "Fruit ... frozen" describes these goods in whole. However, this term does not cover the five mixture types with vegetable ingredients, though the judge added that Nature's Touch's preferred heading, 2106, does not fit either. Vaden ultimately found that the goods are properly classified under subheading 0811.90.80, dutiable at 14.5%, despite both parties' objections that this subheading excludes mixtures.

The Commerce Department legally found that Chinese respondents in an antidumping investigation and review failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, the Court of International Trade ruled in a pair of opinions. In a suit contesting the 2015-16 review of the AD order on off-the-road tires from China, Judge Timothy Stanceu said Guizhou Tyre did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state control of the company's export functions, failing its bid for a separate rate. In a case on the AD investigation on truck and bus tires from China, Stanceu ruled that Guizhou Tyre and Double Coin both failed to rebut the presumption of government control of their export functions.

A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ninhbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.