iScholar, Inc., an American importer affected by an adverse AD duty rate in the September 2007 - August 2008 AD review of certain lined paper products from India, brought suit against the ITA for its determination that an uncooperative Indian mandatory respondent merited an adverse rate of 72.03%, selected from among the individual transactions of the other mandatory respondent (whose overall rate was only 1.34%). Because Blue Bird (India) Ltd. ceased responding to the agency’s questionnaires in mid-review and the rate chosen by the ITA was based on a sale “within the mainstream” of the cooperating respondent’s sales, the Court of International Trade upheld the agency’s determination. (CIT Slip Op. 11-4, dated January 13, 2011)

Following the August 2005 -- July 2006 AD administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE products”) from Korea, the Court of International Trade granted the ITA’s voluntary remand to reconsider its model-matching method for comparing U.S. sales to home market sales. In its remand determination, the ITA decided not to revise its method, but the court ruled that comparing U.S. sales of painted CORE products to home market sales of both painted and laminated products violated the statutory requirement of comparing products “identical in physical characteristics,” and remanded the case back to the ITA again. (CIT Slip Op. 11-3, decided January 11, 2011)

On remand from an earlier Court of International Trade decision, the ITA made a redetermination excluding from the scope of the AD order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China such products that are imported and used only in architectural or structural applications. Importer King Supply Co., having won its exclusion, nevertheless sued again, in order to further clarify the agency’s new scope ruling, but the court ruled that the redetermination ruling is clear, and rejected King’s request for further remand proceedings. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 10/05/10 news, 10100521, for BP summary of CIT remand ruling.) (CIT Slip Op. 11-2, dated January 6, 2011)

The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping duty law determinations in the second half of December 2010.

The Court of International Trade has denied a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for a stay of its judgment in National Fisheries Institute Inc. v. U.S. V, stating that CBP had not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits should it bring an appeal.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made, or made public, the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of December 2010.

In Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. U.S.,the Court of International Trade denied Roche’s motion for summary judgment on the classification of an imported product called BetaTab20%, because there was still a question as to the principal use of the product.

The Supreme Court’s 4-4 split vote¹ in “Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega,” on December 13, 2010 effectively affirmed the appeals court’s reversal and remand of the district court’s favorable ruling for Costco on copyright infringement of “gray market” Omega watches.

In Ford Motor Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s refusal to refund harbor maintenance taxes¹ that Ford allegedly paid on post-July 1, 1990 exports². The CIT stated that Ford had not provided sufficient supporting documentation in its claim for a refund of the HMT.

In Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S., Horizon challenged a determination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that certain coatings work performed on its vessel below the waterline is subject to a 50 percent ad valorem duty as a foreign repair under 19 USC 1466(a).¹