The Court of International Trade denied on March 15 importer Root Sciences' bid for reconsideration of a decision that CBP's seizure of drug paraphernalia precluded a deemed exclusion of the merchandise, removing the case from the trade court's jurisdiction. Root argued that the decision created a paradox, leaving the jurisdictional status of the case in limbo. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Root's motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court's reasoning on matters fully litigated."

The Court of International Trade remanded an Enforce and Protect Act challenge, per the U.S.' request, to give CBP a chance to fix the record after it found out that parties to the investigation weren't given certain documents in the investigation. The case involves a CBP investigation of allegations that Norca Industrial Co. evaded antidumping duties on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China by transshipping its imports through Vietnam. The documents include those relating to a third party's photos and videos from a site visit to manufacturer BW Fittings' Vietnam facility. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves granted the remand solely for the "full consideration of the complete record" and declined to "opine" on other issues raised by Norca.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 11 that there's not enough evidence to back the Commerce Department's position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs for oil country tubular goods in an antidumping duty administrative review on OCTG from South Korea. Affirming the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit said there's no evidence for three of the five factors Commerce alleged created a PMS. The appellate court also rejected Commerce's reliance on its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked" dumping since certain conditions for the statistical test used by Commerce were not met.

The Court of International Trade denied both importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s and the DOJ's motions for judgment in a case over the country of origin of Cyber Power's uninterruptible power supplies and surge voltage protector, ordering that the case go to trial. For these imports, many of their components came from China but were completed in the Philippines. Judge Leo Gordon said that the U.S. failed to show that the process in the Philippines constituted a "simple assembly" but also that Cyber Power failed to show that the goods were "substantially transformed" in the Philippines enough change their origin. The judge gave the parties until March 7 to submit a proposed scheduling order to lay out the next steps for a trial.

The Court of International Trade denied Wheatland Tube Company's bid for a preliminary injunction in a case seeking to compel CBP to respond to requests for information relating to Section 232 evasion since Wheatland hasn't shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits. CBP already responded to Wheatland's requests for information and tariff classification ruling, so Wheatland hasn't shown how it could succeed in the case, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 ruled that Formpack, a flexible packaging material imported by Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlignen, is classifiable as "other" backed aluminum foil, rather than aluminum foil decorated with a pattern or design. Siding with the plaintiff, Judge Gary Katzmann said that Formpack is classified under the duty free subheading 7607.20.50. CBP originally classified the entries under subheading 7607.20.10, which is dutiable at 3.7% and provides for aluminum foil "covered or decorated with a character, design, fancy effect or pattern." Since the text on Formpack is communicative text not decorative, it doesn't belong under CBP's subheading, Amcor successfully argued.

The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 18 the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China brought by plaintiffs led by Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. After an initial remand, the court said that Commerce properly countervailed subsided glass. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce couldn't countervail glass inputs sold for less than adequate remuneration since the glass was tied to non-subject merchandise. Judge Leo Gordon said that the plaintiffs pointed out nothing in the record to prove this fact, thus backing Commerce's position.

The Court of International Trade granted Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's motions for judgment in two cases on the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey. Celik challenges the Commerce Department's refusal to accept questionnaire responses that were filed 21 and 87 minutes late in the AD and CVD cases, respectively. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the rejections amounted to an abuse of discretion and imposed a "draconian penalty" on Celik for a "minor and inadvertent technical error by its counsel that had no appreciable effect on the" investigations.

The Court of International Trade granted Best Mattresses International Company and Rose Lion Furniture International Company an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of their mattress entries in a Feb. 14 order. The injunction bid faced opposition from the DOJ, which argued that the injunction should only run until April 30, 2022 -- the end date of the first administrative review of the AD order in question. The companies are plaintiffs in a challenge to the AD order on mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the injunction was justified since the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm and success on the merits of the case.

The Court of International Trade remanded on Feb. 8 the Commerce Department's final results of the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on forged steel fittings from China. In the review, Commerce hit the respondents with an adverse facts available rate over the Chinese government's failure to provide the agency with information over how its Export Buyer's Credit Program works. The court again said that this is an insufficient reason for using AFA since Commerce failed to explain why the information is necessary and why non-use of the program can't be verified by the information submitted by the respondents and their U.S. customers.