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:

The Court of International Trade dismissed on Sept. 16 part of a Chinese company’s challenge of its high $4.71/kg antidumping duty rate assigned to it after the Commerce Department ended a new shipper review for the company. Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export had requested both a new shipper review and an administrative review on fresh garlic from China (A-570-831) in the hopes of obtaining a lower AD rate. But Commerce ended the new shipper review because the company purportedly wasn’t a new shipper. And it refused a normal administrative review for the company. Part of Maycarrier’s court complaint directly addressed the refusal of administrative review. CIT dismissed the part of the complaint related to the refusal of administrative review, because it was filed before that review was finalized, and not within 60 days of the final results as required by law. The parts of the complaint directly challenging the new shipper review survive.

A Florida man was sentenced Sept. 12 for operating an illicit, San Diego-based online pharmacy that sold over $7 million worth of “unapproved and misbranded oncology drugs at a substantial discount” to U.S. doctors, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Martin Bean of Boca Raton, Fla., pleaded guilty in February to conspiring to commit numerous federal offenses, including wire fraud, mail fraud, selling unapproved and misbranded drugs, and importing merchandise contrary to law.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed on Sept. 16 a lower court decision that found Del Monte’s tuna product, packed in small amounts of oil, should nonetheless be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as having been packed “in oil.” The Court of International Trade had in October said the amount of oil was irrelevant for classification purposes, because neither the HTS nor prior court rulings set a minimum threshold for what it means to be packed “in oil” (see 12101601). CAFC agreed, finding it unnecessary to look beyond the terms of the tariff schedule. The Appeals Court also upheld CIT’s ruling on valuation “formulas.”

The ITC decided to review the final initial determination of an administrative law judge in the complaint filed by SI Group of Schenectady, N.Y., May 21, 2012, alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act in the import of certain rubber resins by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets. Respondents were Red Avenue Chemical of Rochester, N.Y.; Thomas R. Crumlish, Jr. of Rochester, N.Y.; Precision Measurement International of Westland, Mich.; Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co. of Zhangjiagang City, China; Sino Legend Holding Group of Kowloon, Hong Kong; Ning Zhang of North Vancouver, Canada; Quanhai Yang of Beijing, China; and Shanghai Lunsai International Trading Company of Shanghai City, China.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the original calculations by the Department of Commerce of the profit cap applicable under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii) to merchandise sold by Italian exporter Atar S.r.l. ("Atar") in the ninth administrative review of an antidumping duty order directed to certain Italian pasta products, it said in a Sept. 11 decision. The Court of International Trade had rejected those calculations, causing Commerce to revise its determination, eventually including above--and below--cost sales made by profitable and unprofitable respondents in the prior administrative review to satisfy the trade court's remand orders. The CAFC concluded that Commerce's original profit cap calculation was reasonable.