Gang Yan could once again be subject to antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China (A-570-900), after the Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department’s decision to treat parent company Advanced Technology & Materials as a state-controlled entity not eligible for its own rate. Commerce had in a March Section 129 determination revoked the order for AT&M and its subsidiaries, Gang Yan and Yichang HXF, because the elimination of zeroing methodology dropped the companies' original investigation rate to zero (see 13032716]). CIT's decision may now subject the companies to the China-wide 164.09 percent rate, and may also make them ineligible for the separate, company-specific zero rate calculated in the Section 129 determination.

The federal judiciary will remain open at least until Oct. 17 despite the ongoing government shutdown, according to notices posted on court websites. The website for the Federal Judiciary said federal courts will remain open for business at least until Oct. 17 due to severe spending restrictions that have meant for some "limited additional funding" (here). "Spending rates and fund balances will continue to be monitored closely in hope that adequate funds may be available to allow courts to operate through the end of the work week -- October 18," it said. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit put out a similar notice that said it will remain open for business and will reassess its situation on or around Oct. 17 (here).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 dismissed a challenge from a domestic industry coalition to the Commerce Department’s new policy of interpreting the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China to exclude subassemblies from AD/CVD coverage. An October 2012 scope ruling had found that subassemblies can meet the scope’s exclusion for “finished goods kits,” even though they are components meant for incorporation in a larger finished good. The court dismissed the challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because the plaintiff, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), didn’t comment on Commerce’s new policy after it was announced in the preliminary results of the scope ruling.

A California woman was sentenced Sept. 30 to three years in prison for her part in a scheme to hide the identity of imported honey to avoid paying $39.2 million antidumping duties, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. Hung Yi Lin, also known as Katy Lin, pleaded guilty in May at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to falsely declaring that shipments of honey from China were instead sugars, syrups, and apple juice concentrate.

Nine Japan-based companies and two executives have agreed to plead guilty -- and to pay a total of more than $740 million in criminal fines -- for their roles in separate conspiracies to fix the prices of more than 30 different products sold to U.S. car manufacturers and installed in cars sold in the U.S. and elsewhere, said Attorney General Eric Holder at a press conference. He said the international price-fixing conspiracies affected more than $5 billion in automobile parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers, and more than 25 million cars bought by American consumers. Holder said the investigation "uncovered involved more than a dozen separate conspiracies" that resulted in "collusive agreements to rig bids, fix prices and allocate the supply of auto parts sold to U.S. car companies."

The Court of International Trade sustained remand results in the case of SeAH Steel Corp. and Kurt Orban Partners vs the U.S., and entered its judgment accordingly, it said in a Sept. 25 decision. It said no party intends to file comments on the remand results. SeAH is a Korean producer and exporter of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and Kurt Orban is a U.S. importer of the same merchandise. They had contested the Final Results of the Department of Commerce's 17th administrative review of the antidumping duty order for such pipe from Korea.

The Court of International Trade vacated the remainder of its decision in La Crosse Technology vs. the U.S. and said La Crosse model nos. WS-9013 and -9210 are classifiable under subheading 9025.80.10, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006. It also said La Crosse model nos. WS-1610, -2308, -2310, -2315, -2317, -3510, -3512, -3610, -7014, -7042, -7049, -7159, -7211, -7394, -7395, -8025, -8035, -8157, -8610, -9020, -9025, -9031, -9033, -9035, -9043, -9055, -9075, -9096, -9115, -9118, -9119, -9151, -9520, -9600 and -9611, and WT-5130, -5432, and -5442, are classifiable under subheading 9015.80.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006, and that La Crosse model nos. WS-8117, -8236, and WT-5120 are classifiable under subheading 9105.91.40, Harmonized Tariff Schedule for 2005 or 2006.

A group of American and Canadian meat producers has requested an appeal in the U.S. dispute over country of origin labeling (COOL), after a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge denied a request for injunction against implementation of the rule. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia accepted the proposed appeal briefing schedule on Sept. 16 that mandates the appellants file a joint brief on Sept. 23. The judge denied the request on the grounds that the meat groups failed to identify a legal provision that prohibits the Agriculture Department from mandating the COOL disclosure information in question, among other reasons (see 13091130). The appellants include the American Meat Institute, the American Association of Meat Processors, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the North American Mean Association, and the Southwest Meat Association.

The Court of International Trade dismissed on Sept. 18 an importer’s challenge to the assessment of additional antidumping duties on nine entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China, because the importer hadn’t yet paid the duties as required for a court hearing. Importer E & S Express said CBP could have assessed at least some of the duties on a continuous bond E & S had with a surety. CIT ruled that what CBP could have done is irrelevant, because the law makes actual payment of duties mandatory before a denied protest can be challenged under 28 USC 1581(a).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit began allowing electronic payment of court fees Sept. 16, according to the court’s website. The new system links the court’s CM/ECF filing system with pay.gov, and will remain temporary and optional until CAFC is sure it works. The following payments may be made electronically: