The U.S. Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari in a case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products. PrimeSource argued that the president's decision to extend the duties onto these goods was unlawful since it was made beyond procedural time limits laid out in the statute (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

CBP failed to apply an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative-granted Section 301 exclusion for "flexible pressure sensitive LCD display devices used as a surface for electronic wiring" to importer Kent Displays' merchandise, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 27 motion for summary judgment. Kent argued that its Model WT16312 Dashboard is the type of device as described by the exclusion and, as such, should be free of the 25% Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9013.80.7000 (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-00156).

A CBP headquarters decision on a protest is a “prior interpretive ruling or decision" that Ohio-based tent importer Under the Weather should have been able to rely on for tariff classification purposes, and as a result its classification challenge on backpacking tents shouldn't be dismissed, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Oct. 26 brief at the Court of International Trade (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).

The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, switched to using Brazilian surrogate value information to value antidumping duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s non-oak log inputs. Changing course as part of the 2019-20 AD review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Commerce switched to using Brazilian data, the primary surrogate nation, after the trade court rejected its initial use of Malaysian data for the factors of production (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department flipped its position on remand to find that exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. didn't use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though it did continue to find that the exporter benefited from the provision of caustic soda and synthetic yarn for less than adequate remuneration (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).

The Commerce Department failed to link its finding of the Chinese government's control over exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s management to the company's export activities, Pirelli told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 24 opening brief. The agency "adopted an unlawful interpretation and application of the rebuttable presumption" of government control as part of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, the brief said (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 23 opinion denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a partial stay of enforcement of a judgment in its suit against President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products while the decision is on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu said that PrimeSource "has not met its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to a different outcome than that reached by" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when that court denied a similar stay bid by the importer.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A finding of evasion against Skyview Cabinet USA was arbitrary and capricious because CBP failed to establish that the subject wooden cabinets and vanities were covered merchandise at the time they were made and because CBP failed to follow Enforce and Protect Act procedures when it applied adverse inferences, Skyview said in its Oct. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Masterbrand Cabinets Inc., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).