The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's lawsuit contesting CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels from China. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since the liquidation of the entries wasn't a protestable decision. The court instead would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) rather than Section 1581(a) and (i) as claimed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could have raised its claims -- including one that says the duties violate the Eighth Amendment -- by requesting a review of the AD/CVD orders, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. can't withdraw from Hongteo's customs case. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kyasov of Rock Trade Law -- must first identify substitute counsel. Pilon and Kyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo didn't pay its outstanding legal fees.

The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong, an individual who took the customs broker license exam, a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se, had appealed two questions on her test to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher. Looking at CBP's defense of the answers to those questions, Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey's (Prolamsa) heavy walled rectangular carbon welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment which Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 opinion ruled that the Commerce Department didn't err in using total adverse facts available rates to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping review of steel nails from China. While the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce, the court ruled. The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products over its main supplier's transshipment scheme.

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion made public July 1 sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Commerce found that one or more particular market situations existed for exporter Wilmar Trading's home market sales outside of a government-subsidized grant program. In his remand, Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce must either back its PMS finding with evidence or use the price paid for Wilmar's non-program sales to determine normal value in the investigation. Eaton also sent back Commerce's decision to adjust constructed value.

The Court of International Trade in a June 30 opinion upheld the Labor Department's decision to deny a group of former AT&T call center workers trade adjustment assistance, finding the department "(finally) gets it right" after two previous remand orders. In January, the case was remanded for a second time after Judge M. Miller Baker found that DOL failed to address whether AT&T's evidence was "satisfactory without statutory certification." The judge found Labor's answer to this question in its second remand results sufficient, holding the department adequately relied on AT&T's certified information showing it didn't shift call center services to a foreign country.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 28 opinion upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China. Importer Prime Time Commerce had argued that Commerce should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin. The court upheld that Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies during the remand period at the trade court. The appellate court ruled that while the trade court erred by finding that Commerce could not accept Prime Time's submissions as an "interested party," the error was a harmless one and does not require a remand.

The Court of International Trade in a June 24 opinion denied plaintiff Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' move to amend its complaint in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case. The company sought to "amend its complaint to explicitly contest CBP’s denial of its protests with respect to the xanthan gum entries subject to the EAPA" decision. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected the motion as "untimely and futile." The judge said the delay in amending the complaint was undue given how long it took the plaintiff to propose the change and its lack of attempts to make the change until deep into litigation. Katzmann also said the plaintiff failed to identify the specific protests it's contesting.

The Court of International Trade in a June 17 opinion denied plaintiffs Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas injunctive relief from paying cash deposits stemming from the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm from paying the 538.79% cash deposit rate or that they were likely to succeed on the merits. Vaden further held that the balance of equities and public interest favor the U.S. when considering an injunction on the cash deposits.