“Safe berth warranties” are an express assurance of a ship’s safety when coming into a port, and not just a promise that the guarantor will perform due diligence, said the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as it overturned a lower court’s judgment against the owner of an oil tanker associated with a spill. Frescati Shipping Company is attempting to recoup some of the $180 million it paid out in cleanup costs and ship damages after a 2004 oil spill in the Delaware River near Paulsboro, N.J. The appeals court also found that Frescati could benefit from the safe berth warranty, even though it was not a party to the original agreement. Furthermore, the “named port exception” to safe berth warranties does not apply to hazards that are unknown to parties and that are not reasonably foreseeable, the 3rd Circuit said, and so does not apply in this case where a submerged ship anchor caused the spill.

The antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom are set to be reinstated, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided May 16 to reverse several lower court rulings. The Court of International Trade remands had resulted in the International Trade Commission changing its affirmative injury determinations from its sunset reviews to negative ones. That led to revocation of the ball bearings orders for Japan and the U.K. in July 2011. But the appeals court said that, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the ITC injury findings were supported by record evidence, and should have stood.

JTEKT North America, successor to Koyo Corporation, appealed the Court of International Trade’s March 13 denial of Koyo’s bid for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidization Offset Act (also known as the Byrd Amendment). Koyo, a domestic tapered roller bearing manufacturer, had said it should receive duties collected pursuant to various antidumping duty orders on tapered roller bearings. CIT said Koyo’s constitutional arguments were identical to those raised in Pat Huval v. U.S. (see 12031204). Just as in Pat Huval, the court dismissed all of Koyo’s claims as foreclosed by precedent (see 13031429).

A Chinese company appealed a decision by the Court of International Trade affirming the Commerce Department’s ability to impose countervailing duties on non-market economy countries, as well as its affirmative subsidy determinations for inputs at less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) from state-owned enterprises (see 13031404). The court had denied Guangdong Wireking’s broad constitutional challenge to CV duties on NMEs based on recent precedent approving the practice. Wireking’s other challenge on whether state-owned enterprises are “government authorities” that can bestow subsidies failed on the misunderstanding that “government authorities" have to exercise state authority. Instead, they just have to be owned by the government, CIT said.

Chemsol and MC International appealed the March 20 dismissal by the Court of International Trade of its challenge to CBP’s extensions of the liquidation deadline for its entries in the context of an investigation of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion (see 13032104). Plaintiffs Chemsol and MC International argued that the investigation was inactive because CBP and ICE had not requested new information from the companies, and so CBP was unjustified in its extensions. But the court said CBP was within its rights to extend the liquidation deadlines, because the investigation was active in that CBP was seeking information elsewhere. CBP isn’t restricted to seeking more information only from the investigated companies, it said.

The Court of International Trade vacated its August judgment against Nan Ya Plastics’ claim for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment) (see 12071601). The court will now allow Nan Ya to file an amended complaint, in light of the Appeals Court’s July 2012 ruling in PS Chez Sidney v. International Trade Commission (see 12071604).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s determination that imports of Nintendo’s Wii video game system are not violating Section 337 by infringing on Motiva’s patents. The ITC had found that Motiva was not in the process of establishing a domestic industry. The company’s only activity related to the patents being a lawsuit against Nintendo. The court said the ITC’s determination was supported by the record -- Motiva was not close to developing a product that would utilize the patented technologies, and hadn’t been actively attempting to develop one for years. CAFC also pointed to Motiva’s decision not to ask for a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit, as well as the delay of three years between the launch of the Wii and Motiva’s ITC complaint, to show that Motiva’s owners had only filed the lawsuit for financial gain, not to clear the way for establishing an industry in the U.S.

The Court of International Trade ruled that laser sintering machines that use an additive manufacturing process to build metal and plastic objects are correctly classified under residual provisions for machinery, instead of as machine tools or laser welders. Both EOS and the government argued that technology in each category has advanced beyond what the writers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for those products could have anticipated. But CIT, turning to common definitions of each, said neither category could be stretched to include the laser sintering machines.

Riddell appealed a Court of International Trade decision that the company’s football pants, jerseys, and girdles are correctly classified for tariff purposes as apparel, and not sports equipment. The football uniform components were imported without pads, and as goods are classified in their condition as imported, they did not qualify as sports protective equipment, CIT had said (see 13032221).

Mueller Comercial appealed a Court of International Trade ruling that affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to partially apply adverse facts available (AFA) to determine Mueller’s antidumping duty rate, despite Mueller’s full cooperation in the 2008-09 AD administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico (A-201-805). Commerce had used AFA on incomplete cost data needed from one of Mueller’s suppliers. CIT said that the uncooperative supplier would have benefited from a lower AD rate without the partial application of AFA, so use of AFA was justified, despite the fact that Mueller cooperated. Despite ruling in December (see 12122604), the court didn’t enter judgment until May 2.