The Court of International Trade again found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum "derivatives" in a June 10 decision. Relying on its recent ruling in a similar case involving nail importer PrimeSource, Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu, as part of a three-judge panel, awarded refunds to Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. The panel ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion.

Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Judge Miller Baker dismissed a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co., finding the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since they did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties. The importers had filed their lawsuits under CIT's residual Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, but that provision was unavailable because the importers were actually challenging a CBP classification decision, CIT said.

Antidumping duty China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available (AFA) even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative in an administrative review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 10 decision reversing a decision to the contrary from the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production data on a product-specific basis in an antidumping case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 9 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon, in a consolidated action challenging an antidumping administrative review on steel nails from China, said Commerce had the right to switch to the control number-specific reporting requirement and the mandatory respondent should have known about this switch. Gordon also found that Commerce was justified in including the total AFA rate for two of the three mandatory respondents in the average for the non-individually reviewed respondents' rate.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, and not in heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which are eligible for duty-free GSP treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said in upholding CIT's decision.

The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China back to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents in the review now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents no longer applies.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results which used partial adverse facts available to raise the antidumping rate for Indian stainless steel bar exporter Venus Wire Industries Pvt., in a June 2 opinion. After receiving remand instructions from Judge Mark Barnett on Nov. 11 to further explain its use of partial AFA, Commerce did just that, but also raised the AD rate for Venus from 5.35% to 24.60%. Venus contested the results, arguing that Commerce exceeded the scope of its own voluntary remand request and only ever meant to establish a "higher, punitive margin." Barnett rejected these claims, upholding Commerce's determination.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results reversing a scope ruling that included ready to assemble kitchen cabinets under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, in a May 27 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann had originally remanded on the question of whether the scope request from petitioners in the case was specific enough to be accepted, and upon further examination Commerce found that it was not. None of the litigants challenged the remand redetermination.

The Court of International Trade remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's final results in a countervailing duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China in a May 19 opinion made public on May 26. Upholding Commerce's issuance of the CVD order and the agency's application of adverse facts available to previously unreported grants and loans by respondent Giuzhou Tyre Co., Judge Timothy Reif also sent back for further consideration Commerce's decision to apply AFA to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with four other elements to its duty calculation.

A set of domestic steel producers will not be allowed to intervene in six challenges to the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 tariff exclusions to steel importers, following a May 25 decision from the Court of International Trade. "The Court concludes that the proposed intervenors are ineligible to intervene as a matter of law and therefore denies their motions," said Judge Miller Baker in the decision. "Nevertheless, the Court reiterates its willingness to entertain motions to appear as amici curiae."