Beta carotene tablets imported by Roche Vitamins are correctly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as provitamins, said the Court of International Trade, ruling against CBP’s proposed classification as food preparations. The case had been subject to an earlier ruling in 2010, where the court found factual disputes still existed as to the use of the tablets, and ordered a trial. After trial, CIT found the tablets are predominantly used as a source of provitamin A.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the 2008-09 antidumping duty administrative review on laminated woven sacks from China (A-570-916). Shapiro Packaging challenged the Commerce Department’s decision to assign respondent Zibo Aifudi a higher China-wide rate because of its decision to stop participating midway through the review, which meant Commerce couldn’t verify the company’s submissions on independence from government control. But the appeals court on June 24 said no law prohibits Commerce from disregarding information it can’t verify, and affirmed.

The Court of International Trade refused to rule in a tariff classification case on heat-sensitive glass bulbs, finding factual disputes prevented them from judging the legal merits of either party’s arguments. At issue was a CBP classification of Tyco Fire Products’ glass bulbs, which are filled with a chemical that causes them to explode when heated. CBP had classified them as articles of glass, but Tyco said the bulbs were parts of fire sprinkler systems and water heaters, and should be classified as such. CIT said it couldn’t rule on the question, because the parties hadn’t submitted enough evidence for the court to consider (1) whether the glass or the chemical gave the bulbs their essential character, and (2) whether the bulbs were mainly used in Tyco’s asserted applications.

As it had in a similar case on an earlier review, the Court of International Trade ordered another redo of the final results of the 2007-08 antidumping duty administrative review on floor-standing metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888). Commerce had originally assigned Foshan Shunde the China-wide rate for noncooperation, but the court had found that noncooperation didn’t apply to Commerce’s separate rate determination, and remanded in 2011 (see 11102458). On remand, the agency assigned Foshan Shunde a separate rate of 157.68 percent based on adverse facts available. CIT took no issue with the agency’s reliance on AFA, but said Commerce didn’t prove the chosen rate was relevant to Foshan Shunde’s business conditions. Corroboration is required when an AD rate is based on another company during an earlier period of review, the court said.

The Court of International Trade again remanded the final results of the 2006-07 antidumping duty administrative review on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888) to reconsider Since Hardware’s rate. Now on its second remand, Commerce reversed position and found Since Hardware was entitled to a separate rate. It had previously held the company submitted false information on inputs, and so had declined to consider all of its submissions, including those on government control. Accordingly, in the original results of the review, it found the company to be part of the China-wide entity. But the court had twice told Commerce that it had to make a separate finding on whether the company was entitled to a separate rate (see 11113026).

The Court of International Trade sustained the negative injury determination that ended the 2009 antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of standard steel fasteners from China and Taiwan, after finding the International Trade Commission justified its reliance on certain data on remand. Although the court originally remanded in October 2011 for ITC’s use of allegedly incomplete data (see 11102112), CIT accepted the ITC’s continued use of the data on remand because using different data wouldn’t have changed the ultimate finding of no injury to domestic industry, it said. As such, the court denied Nucor’s request for a new investigation.

After a decade of seesawing Commerce Department remand determinations on the issue, the Court of International Trade sustained the agency’s finding that critical circumstances did not exist for the 2001 antidumping duty investigation on honey from China (A-570-863). Commerce had originally found critical circumstances, which meant entries of subject merchandise from up to 90 days before the investigation’s preliminary decision were subject to AD duties. But a series of CIT and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rulings took issue with Commerce’s findings, given the requirement that importers had to know the honey was being dumped for critical circumstances to exist. Honey from China had been subject to a suspension agreement that set minimum reference prices during the period of investigation, so it couldn’t be inferred that the importers knew dumping was taking place, the courts had said. In the end, the court agreed with Commerce that record evidence didn’t really show importer knowledge of dumping, given the appeals court’s rulings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the Export-Import Bank failed to fully justify its economic impact loan procedures, reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court in a case against the Bank brought by Delta Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association. The original suit, filed April 3, alleges the Bank’s loans for aircraft exports to foreign airlines harm U.S. airlines and their employees (see 13040523). The appeals court’s June 18 ruling agreed that the Bank failed to “reasonably explain” its justifications for part of its loan procedures, required under the Bank Act: the public law authorizing Ex-Im. The Act requires Ex-Im to determine how any potential loan might affect American industry and jobs. The Bank failed to explain its “apparent conclusion that loans and loan guarantees to help a foreign company provide a service (as opposed to a good) can never cause adverse effects to U.S. industries and U.S. jobs,” the Appeals Court decision said. The decision requires Ex-Im to explain how its economic impact procedures square with the Bank Act, “adequately consider and explain any adverse effects” of the particular loans Delta took issue with, or take any other action Ex-Im deems appropriate to comply with the Bank Act. The June 18 ruling did not vacate any of the Bank’s actions related to the case. Ex-Im will now be required to "take the complaints of industry participants seriously before proceeding with potentially harmful subsidies to foreign airlines," said Delta in a statement on the decision (here).

The Court of International Trade remanded a scope ruling on the aluminum extrusions from China antidumping and countervailing duty orders, for the Commerce Department to apply a new policy for the exclusion of finished goods from the order. Meridian Products said Commerce should have applied the new test adopted in an October scope ruling on side mount valve controls to Meridian’s scope ruling on trim kits. Meridian had requested the scope ruling in November, and Commerce found the trim kits to be covered by the AD/CVD orders the next month. The test from the October scope ruling relates to whether subassemblies can be considered “finished goods” or “finished goods kits,” and therefore excluded from the order.

The Southern New York U.S. District Court ordered three importers to pay nearly $22.5 million to the government of South Africa for Lacey Act violations stemming from the over-quota harvest of rock lobster. According to the Justice Department, the restitution order is the largest in a Lacey Act case in history. It had been the subject of a 2011 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found restitution could be ordered in Lacey Act cases. The three men also served prison terms and forfeited other money in connection with the convictions.