The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 7 opinion said it does not have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafood's lawsuit challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application to import Chilean sea bass. Judge Timothy Reif said the preapproval application denial, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), "does not constitute an embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The U.S. implemented the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource (CAMLR) Convention, which sets conservation measures globally, via the AMLRCA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 6 opinion sustained CBP's classification of knit gloves with a partial plastic coating under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Judges Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto sided with the government over importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co., which championed subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Citing heading 6116's Explanatory Note, the court said this heading, which covers "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted," includes knitted gloves with non-knit components. The court rejected the importer's claims that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casings, precluded classification under Section XI.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 opinion granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment on the classification of various nutritional preparations meant for use by patients with medical conditions. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained CBP's classification of the five imported goods at issue, all medical foods intended for infants and toddlers, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4%, instead of importer Nutricia North America's preferred subheading of 3004.50.5040, free of duty. The judge said the five products are "food preparations" fitting under heading 2106 and not "medicaments" as listed under heading 3004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 4 opinion sustained the Court of International Trade's ruling upholding the Commerce Department's 2018 antidumping review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand. During litigation on the review, the agency removed a particular market situation adjustment it initially made to respondents Saha Thai Steel and Thai Premium Pipe's costs of production to determine normal value as part of the sales-below-cost test. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the Federal Circuit's ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which made the adjustment illegal. Petitioner Wheatland Tube attempted to distinguish the present case from Hyundai Steel by claiming the PMS adjustment was a constructed value calculation. The court disagreed, saying Hyundai Steel is controlling.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion denied exporter Risen Energy Co.'s bid to amend its complaint in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The exporter tried to add a claim that China's Article 26(2) tax program is not a de jure specific countervailable subsidy following a CIT ruling in a separate case brought by Risen, in which the court said the program is not de jure specific. Judge Jane Restani said that because the issue was not raised administratively at any point, Risen now could not bring the claim before the court. Waiving the exhaustion requirement is "inappropriate" because the exporter does not raise a "pure question of law" but one that requires additions to the record, Restani said.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding "embargoes or other quantitative restrictions." While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 27 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan's. Judge Gary Katzmann called Commerce's characterization of Nur's steel scrap as not necessarily primarily dedicated to Kaptan's production of rebar lawful and said the agency properly considered Nur's business activity as a factor in its primarily dedicated inquiry. The court held there is no past Commerce practice where the agency treats steel scrap as a primarily dedicated input of rebar.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 22 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Kumar Industries in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Kumar's "inadequate explanations' related to income-tax-related documentation for one of the limited partnership's partners did not allow Commerce to conduct its affiliation analysis pertaining to Kumar and two unnamed companies. The record lacked the needed information to "reconcile the record evidence" of the partner's ownership interest in the unnamed companies with conflicting information present in the "draft computation" Kumar submitted for the partner.

The Commerce Department didn't violate statutory, regulatory or constitutional considerations in instructing CBP to automatically liquidate exporter Goodluck India's cold-drawn mechanical tubing shipments as part of the third antidumping review without providing the company with a later chance to file a request for review, the Court of International Trade ruled. The court originally excluded Goodluck's entries from the AD order, but that ruling was reversed on appeal. Commerce told CBP to liquidate Goodluck's entries subject to the AD order's third review at the 33.7% rate instead of the provisional zero percent rate in place during the second AD review's anniversary month.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted a group of Canadian exporters' motion to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling subjecting the companies to the order. Judge Mark Barnett said that while the second clause of Rule 60(b)(5) was not the proper basis for granting this request, the rule's third clause was, since the enforcement of the court's previous order subjecting the companies to CVD cash deposits is no longer equitable. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective going back to August 2021, when Barnett first subjected the companies to the order.