The government appealed a February Court of International Trade decision ordering CBP to admit coaxial cable connectors imported by Corning Gilbert, but found by CBP to be subject to an International Trade Commission general exclusion order for patent infringement. CBP had denied entry to Corning Gilbert’s connectors based on the exclusion order, despite no ITC finding for the company in the underlying Section 337 investigation, and later issued a ruling letter confirming that the company’s connectors were to be refused entry. In February, CIT found that CBP’s ruling letter was not entitled to deference because the agency didn’t adequately address the question of patent infringement. After examining the patent at issue and Corning Gilbert’s connector, CIT said the connector didn’t infringe the relevant patents and should not have been excluded (see 13020405).

Dependable Packaging appealed the Court of International Trade’s Feb. 21 decision on classification of its vases as decorative glassware, rather than glass containers for packaging. CIT’s decision was based on the principal use of the company’s vases -- although Dependable Packaging argued that the vases were used to pack flowers for final sale as a unit, the court found that there was no difference between the vases at issue in the case and those sold to consumers for decorative use (see 13022104).

The Court of International Trade again remanded the final results of the 2008 antidumping duty administrative review on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890), partly because of the partial adverse facts available (AFA) rate chosen for Chinese company Fairmont’s unreported sales.¹ The court had first remanded the International Trade Administration’s final results in June 2012, for the ITA to reconsider Fairmont’s partial AFA rate, the surrogate wage rate, its use of a financial statement, and its use of zeroing (see 12060729). On remand, the ITA recalculated the wage rate and adequately explained its use of zeroing, but failed to implement the court’s orders on Fairmont’s partial AFA rate and the use of the financial statement.

The Court of International Trade is increasing its fees for filing cases. Effective May 1, the fee for filing challenges to protest denials under 28 USC 1581(a) will increase from $150 to $175, while the fee for filing Trade Adjustment Assistance challenges for workers under 28 USC 1581(d)(1) will rise from $25 to $35. Fees for all other actions, including challenges to International Trade Administration determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, will increase from $350 to $400.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed CBP’s Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Kahrs International’s engineered wood flooring as plywood, rather than parquet panels or builder’s joinery. The Court of International Trade had originally sustained CBP’s classification in 2009. Kahrs argued that its engineered wood flooring did not meet the commercial meaning of plywood. But CAFC said the commercial definition of a product is irrelevant for tariff provisions that describe products by name rather than use.

Delta Airlines filed suit against the Export-Import Bank April 3, alleging the Bank’s loans for aircraft exports to foreign airlines harm U.S. airlines and their employees. Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., the suit claims the billions of dollars in financing Ex-Im has given to airlines -- including national carriers in South Korea, Poland and Dubai -- allow those companies to recoup investment in new aircraft faster or reduce customer ticket prices. “Unsubsidized U.S. airlines will be forced to respond by reducing their prices and reducing or altogether eliminating their capacity to serve those routes where they compete with Bank-subsidized foreign airlines,” court documents said. Delta wants a federal judge to block Ex-Im approval of financial assistance -- more than $100 million in each case -- for those carriers purchasing so-called widebody aircraft. Hawaiian Airlines and the Airline Pilots Association are also plaintiffs in the case.

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s application of total adverse facts available to Mukand, Ltd.’s antidumping duty rate, despite the company’s omission of only one piece of data, in the 2009-10 administrative review of stainless steel bar from India (A-533-810). Mukand had declined to provide information on cost differences between producing stainless steel bar of various sizes, but had otherwise fully cooperated. CIT agreed with the ITA in its application of total AFA, finding that the requested information was so important to calculating Mukand’s AD rate that the rate could not have been accurately calculated without it.

The Court of International Trade denied Cutter & Buck’s challenge to CBP’s valuation of 168 entries of apparel. Cutter & Buck argued that CBP should have deducted international freight charges when arriving at the price actually paid or payable for the purpose of calculating transaction value. The shipments were subject to a late-delivery clause that shifted responsibility for shipping to the seller. Cutter & Buck said the clause also changed the terms of sale from free on board (FOB) to cost, insurance, and freight (CIF), so the cost of shipping was included in the invoice, and deductible, as a result of the late delivery. But the court found that there was no evidence to support Cutter & Buck’s claim that the invoice price included the international freight charges, so they could not be deducted.

The Court of International Trade remanded the final injury determination from the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of multilayered wood flooring from China, finding the International Trade Commission failed to account for the effect of the housing downturn and financial crisis on the domestic wood flooring industry. The court also found fault with the ITC’s refusal to include domestic hardwood plywood producers in its injury investigation, and its lack of explanation of whether imports from China were the “but-for” cause of injury.

The Court of International Trade denied the Wind Tower Trade Coalition’s request for preliminary injunction against liquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on utility scale wind towers from China and Vietnam, but made during the provisional measures period. The court had temporarily enjoined liquidation of the entries March 4, because of a pending challenge to the effective date of the AD/CV duty orders resulting from the investigations (see 13030820). Because of the injury vote in the investigations, the orders did not cover entries made between the preliminary determination and the AD/CV duty orders.