The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 28 opinion blocked imports of snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the plaintiffs in a case seeking a ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have allegedly caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin are likely to succeed on two of their claims.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 23 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to drop its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping respondent's cost of production for the sales-below-cost test. Judge Gary Katzmann cited a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which made such an adjustment illegal.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 18 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's denial of plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. GreenFirst applied for the CCR after it acquired Rayonier A.M. Canada and sought to get its non-selected companies' CVD rate of 6.32%. Commerce claimed that it did not start the CCR due to its "significant change" practice that it will not conduct the review where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since Rayonier did not have an individually calculated rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's surrogate data selection in the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon also upheld Commerce's remand results relating to steel plate cost smoothing. Previously, the court ruled that the agency must either further explain or reconsider its decision to adjust the steel plate costs for all reported control numbers. Gordon said that on remand, Commerce gave a "more thorough explanation as to how and why its cost analysis and the record" backed its decision to reject respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 8 opinion denied a motion for judgment from plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., in a case challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. The plaintiffs challenged Commerce's decision to use verification in lieu of on-site verification. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that Ellwood City failed to exhaust its administrative remedies over this challenge, thus denying Ellwood City's motion.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 28 order sent back the Commerce Department's rejection of late-filed antidumping questionnaire answers, finding the agency abused its discretion. While Judge Jane Restani said Commerce would likely be found to have reasonably rejected respondent Ajmal Steel's request for more time given COVID-19-related complications, the judge held that the agency abused its discretion by giving itself extra time to carry out the review but not giving the respondent additional time. Ajmal's delay clocked in at less than two hours while Commerce's consisted of one 50-day and one 60-day tolling period.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion ruled in a dispute over whether exporter Oman Fasteners should post bond or cash deposits to secure payment of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties in a case on the validity of the national security tariffs. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said that the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case brought by Garg Tube Export and Garb Tube Limited on the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Previously in the case, Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's finding that a particular market situation existed in India for hot-rolled coil steel and its regression methodology applying a PMS adjustment. On remand and under "respectful protest," Commerce dropped the PMS finding and adjustment, leading Kelly to uphold the remand results.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion again ruled it's legal for importer Keirton USA to possess and import its merchandise, deemed "drug paraphernalia" federally, into Washington state. Building on the Eteros decision at CIT that declared the same thing, Judge Claire Kelly said the state's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to find the term "authorization" applies to Washington state law.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 5 opinion made public Oct. 12 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett held that Commerce must reconsider or further explain its decision not to investigate off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration and its decision not to treat respondent POSCO's affiliate POSCO Plantec as a cross-owned input supplier for the supply of scrap.