The Court of International Trade on Dec. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on lined paper products from India. Judge Stephen Vaden said that Commerce didn't commit a programming error by altering respondent Navneet Education's response to "YES" to the question of whether product characteristic information was provided. While Navneet didn't give the agency the physical characteristics of the goods in its cost database, Navneet did put the data in question on the record as part of its submissions to Commerce, the court noted.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 said action camera-maker GoPro's imports of eight camera housing models are properly classified under the company's proffered Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 8529.90.86, free of duty. This subheading provides for "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus" of heading 8525. Judge Timothy Reif spent the bulk of the opinion discussing how the camera housings do not fit under the heading Customs used, 4202, which carries a 20% duty rate. Reif said the housings are not "cases" because they don't require the user to remove, modify or open to access the camera and because the housings boost the camera's functionality.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against antidumping respondent Saffron Living Co. after the company withdrew from the case on remand. Sustaining the 760% AD rate against the company in the investigation on mattresses from Thailand, Judge M. Miller Baker said the remand results are upheld since no remaining party contests the mark. The case was on remand so Commerce could attempt to verify data from Saffron, though this became impossible after Saffron withdrew from the proceeding.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on an antidumping investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon noted that the court already rejected exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's argument that Commerce improperly rejected the company's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate, adding that Dillinger didn't properly show reconsideration of the issue is "appropriate." The judge also rejected petitioner Nucor's challenge to the adjustment to the model match methodology to include a separate quality code for sour transport plate in calculating Dillinger's margin.

In a separate opinion, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's surrogate value picks in an AD review on activated carbon from China. The court rejected exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co.'s challenge to the surrogate value of bituminous coal for failure to raise the issue administratively, sustained the benchmark data for valuating bituminous coal and upheld Commerce's surrogate valuation of coal tar pitch.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.

In a separate opinion, Judge Jane Restani sustained Commerce's third remand results in a case on the sixth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Because all parties agreed that the remand results, in which the agency reverted to a previously used land benchmark calculation, complied with the law, the judge upheld the case.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.

In a separate Dec. 18 opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker remanded Commerce's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said that Korea's cap-and-trade carbon emissions system, which provides some manufacturers with 100% of their allowed units while others get only 97%, provides a countervailable subsidy to the company that gets 100% of the units. The court said Commerce failed to address questions about the program's specificity.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury findings on mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. Judge Stephen Vaden said ITC's errors, which included "mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery" regarding claims that the mattress industry was more segmented than the commission believed, were harmless. Despite the errors, the commission "made the necessary findings to have its decision supported by substantial evidence," the opinion said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's case challenging CBP's antidumping evasion finding against the company's cased pencil imports. Judge Mark Barnett said Royal Brush had to file a protest with CBP to allow the court to order reliquidation for its entries, which the agency illegally liquidated, so CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. The company imported five entries, two of which were assessed the AD duties and three of which were not.

Regarding the duty-free entries, Barnett said that the government is subject to the same "statutory constraints on relief from erroneous liquidations" as importers are. As for the dutiable entries, the judge said the limits of Section 1514 apply, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said meant that all liquidations, "whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 18 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce adequately explained how its differential pricing analysis (DPA) methodology, used to root out "masked" dumping, is "reasonable." This methodology recently returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a separate case after the appellate court previously raised questions on the use of the DPA, specifically the use of the Cohen's d test.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In the remand results, Commerce continued to find that exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale during the review was not a bona fide sale, subjecting the company to the 251.65% China-wide AD rate. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's results weren't "legally inconsistent" and the agency wasn't barred by statute or its past practice from conducting a bona fide analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in an evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. In one, Far East American v. U.S., the Commerce Department reversed course and said that exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders at issue. In the other, Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an importer's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in an AD/CVD evasion case.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 12 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation into polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. In the proceeding, the agency did not conduct on-site verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Richard Eaton found Commerce's failure to produce a verification report prior to issuing its final determination was illegal. As a result, Asia Pacific was "blindsided" by the use of adverse facts available, which led to a 26.07% AD rate.

The judge rejected Asia Pacific's request that Commerce be forced to conduct either an on-site or remote verification, instead ordering the agency to report the "methods, procedures, and results" of verification and give Asia Pacific a reasonable chance to address any deficiencies Commerce found.

In a separate opinion the same date, CIT's Judge Jane Restani granted the government's request for a remand in a case on the 2021 countervailing duty review of solar products from China. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider its use of Descartes data in calculating the ocean freight benchmark in the review.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that large industrial shredders imported from Germany were classifiable as machines built for the purpose of “crushing and grinding,” despite CBP's arguments their use of blades for that purpose made them cutting machines instead. Granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it directed CBP to classify the shredders, imported by U.S. company Vecoplan, under the duty-free subheading 8479.82, rather than as "other" machines of subheading 8479.89, as CBP had classified them.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton sustained a particular market situation finding based on an export levy the Indonesian government set in 2015, as well as the agency's method for accounting for Renewable Identification Numbers, which decreased U.S. price. The judge sent back Commerce's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when setting respondent Wilmar Trading's normal value, as based on constructed value, to address the potential imposition of a double remedy. Eaton also sustained the use of adverse facts against exporter Musim Mas.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 8 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of stainless steel flanges from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu found fault with Commerce's selection of only one individual respondent in the review, which led to the non-individually examined exporters receiving the lone respondent's 145.25% adverse facts available rate. Stanceu added that these companies were also assessed the AFA rate rate in violation of the statute's "reasonable method" requirement.

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.

Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce properly determined that Goodluck was still covered by the AD order's final determination after CIT's first decision, adding the agency legally differentiated between the exclusion of a particular exporter vs. particular entries of that exporter. The judge noted said the holding is "narrow" and doesn't discuss whether a full provisional exclusion from an AD order renders an exporter no longer covered by that order.

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.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani again sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available against respondent Risen Energy for its supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, saying the agency imposed an "onerous level of certification" on Risen because the requirements "impede good faith efforts by respondents to comply." In addition, Restani sent back Commerce's land benchmark formula, which the agency came up with on remand, for violating the remand order's scope.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's final affirmative critical circumstances determination on raw honey from Vietnam, which led to the retroactive imposition of duties due to the timing and volume of imports. Judge Leo Gordon said "the four corners of the record do not support" the legal or evidentiary claims from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods. The judge said the plaintiffs failed to convince the court that the phrase "order to be issued" in the statutory mandate means ITC must find that imports are "likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping order to be issued." The importers also failed to convince the judge "how or why the statute would limit the time period" for the analysis to only the 90-day retroactive period instead of having it mirror the same period Commerce Department reviewed in its analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 opinion partially ended an antidumping case for one of two plaintiffs, German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, saying the court already had resolved its claims. Salzgitter challenged the use of adverse facts available on sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the AD investigation of cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon earlier sustained Commerce's use of AFA but now entered partial judgment against Salzgitter after finding the remaining issues do not affect the company, giving it a chance to appeal before final resolution of the case.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 14 opinion again remanded the Commerce Department's de jure specificity finding regarding Germany's KAV program as part of the countervailing duty investigation of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce, in its second remand results, did not explain how the German subsidy program limits usage to certain industries or enterprises and failed to consider the program's economic and horizontal properties and application. The program is available in Germany to certain customers based on energy usage. Kelly ruled that the fact that the program is limited does not mean that it is de jure specific.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 13 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden sent back the Commerce Department's affiliation analysis regarding mandatory respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and its customer BNK Steel Co., telling the agency to "apply the proper statutory test for affiliation, and explain" how the facts back its decision. The judge, however, sustained Commerce's affiliation analysis of Saha Thai and six of its other customers. The decision also granted Commerce's request to reconsider the scope of the review following an impending Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a separate case brought by Saha Thai.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 13 said then-President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 safeguard tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, in a decision that gives the president wide discretion in taking tariff action. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said the president did not clearly misconstrue the statute to find that he could make a trade-restricting modification to past Section 201 tariff action.

Importers, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, had claimed that the statute's language, which says that previous safeguards can be "reduced, modified, or terminated," only allowed for trade-liberalizing measures. The court also rejected the importers' claims that the president violated various procedural requirements in revoking the tariff exclusion.

The Commerce Department legally found that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 8 opinion. The case was remanded so that Commerce could address evidence that Valeo's product undergoes heat treatment, barring it from being classified as subject 3XXX-series core. Judge Mark Barnett said that Valeo did not present a "cogent challenge" to Commerce's finding that Valeo's T-series sheet "undergoes a combination of annealing and cold-working" that doesn't bar classification as a 3XXX-series alloy.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 30 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017-18 antidumping review of multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce properly calculated the surrogate manufacturing overhead ratio by using the indirect production expenses amount in the numerator and listing its reasons for taking out energy costs and putting them in the denominator. The judge also upheld the use of Romania's International Labor Organization data to calculate the surrogate's hourly labor value, saying "the data reflects hours actually worked in the surrogate country."

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 23 opinion rejected importer PrimeSource Building Products' request for a stay pending its U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a decision allowing the expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu refused to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision rejecting a stay request. Baker, penning a concurring opinion, said the court lacks authority to stay the Federal Circuit's judgment, but even if it did, the importer has not shown irreparable injury because the court has the authority to order reliquidation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 23 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to countervail the South Korean government's provision of electricity as part of the countervailing duty investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said that, after the appellate court's previous rejection of Commerce's preferential rate analysis, the agency appropriately used a less than adequate remuneration analysis. Commerce also sufficiently investigated the Korean Power Exchange's generation costs and found no countervailable benefit, the court said.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 granted Canadian exporter Midwest-CBK's motion to dismiss its case on whether its sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." or "domestic sales." Following a prior CIT ruling finding that the company's sales are for export to the U.S., the case shifted to a question of how to value the goods. Midwest-CBK said that obtaining evidence on this question is impossible given its business model, moving to dismiss the case to pursue its original argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20 remanded parts and sustained parts of the International Trade Commission's injury determination on imports of seamless pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine. Judge M. Miller Baker sent back the ITC's failure to give Russian exporter PAO TMK a chance to argue against its sole reliance on questionnaire data from one unnamed company as to German imports and data from another unnamed company as to Mexican imports. Baker also remanded the ITC's acceptance of "Company A's questionnaire" while rejecting "Company C's." The court sustained the commission's estimate of seamless pipe imports from Ukraine and refusal to determine what imports correspond to domestic like products.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on truck and bus tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce properly levied Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. with an adverse facts available rate over its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The court said that the exporter failed to raise a host of challenges to the use of AFA administratively, barring relief on its claims at CIT.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 18 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to deny importer Seneca Foods Corp.'s eight requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on its tin mill product imports. Judge Gary Katzmann granted Commerce's voluntary remand request for reconsideration of two of the denials, while also remanding the remaining six exclusion request denials after finding the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the requests. Commerce did not adequately address contradictory evidence, the judge said, noting the decisions raise questions about Commerce's entire administrative process.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 remanded the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain for the second time. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that after individually investigating exporter Siemens Gamesa on the first remand, Commerce illegally levied a 73% adverse facts available rate on the company after collapsing it with affiliated supplier Windar Renovables and five of Windar's subsidiaries. Commerce unlawfully relied on the conclusion that the 73% AFA rate on Windar set in the original AD investigation was final and controlling and improperly used AFA on Siemens Gamesa given the record evidence, Stanceu said.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 11 opinion partially sustained and partially remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Jane Restani granted the U.S. request for a remand regarding China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the datasets used to set a benchmark for ocean freight. The court also sent back Commerce's use of a 2010 Thai Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis report in setting the land value benchmark and its de jure specificity finding regarding benefits received from a program that makes income from investment gains derived by a resident enterprise via direct investment in another resident enterprise tax exempt. Restani upheld Commerce's 2017 benefit finding regarding land leases, which was left to coexist in the present review period.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's zero percent rate for non-individually examined companies in the fifth remand redetermination of the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood products from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves in an Oct. 10 opinion sustained Commerce's separate rate along with its decisions to exclude Dehua TB and Jiangyang Wood from, and to include Sanfortune Wood and Longyuan Wood within, the order. Commerce ultimately decided on the zero rate under protest after Choe-Groves disallowed the use of a 57.36% rate, calculated using only de minimus and AFA rates (see 2303170047).

The Court of International Trade in part granted importer Southern Cross Seafoods' motion to supplement the administrative record in a case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of the company's application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass. Judge Timothy Reif said the U.S. needs to explain its position regarding Southern Cross' motion requesting information showing how the NMFS obtained outside legal opinions included in the administrative record and information identifying who authored one of the legal opinions titled. Reif also rejected Southern Cross' motion seeking five other categories of documents, finding either that the U.S. offered the requested documents or that the U.S. did not leave them off in bad faith.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion vacated part of its prior decision in an antidumping case remanding the Commerce Department's methodology for calculating an adverse facts available rate for mandatory respondent Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce can use the highest transaction-specific dumping margin for the other mandatory respondent in the review, Senmao, as the total AFA rate for Sino-Maple after initially rejecting the move. The opinion comes as part of the sixth AD review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Commerce did not submit a remand redetermination following Eaton's original decision but instead vied for reconsideration of the opinion.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 29 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce must consider its legal basis for finding that South Korea's emissions trading program is countervailable. While the agency said the South Korean government forewent revenue it was otherwise due by fully allocating emissions permits, Barnett noted a standard allocation of the permits may lead to extra government revenue but will not certainly lead to it. The judge added that Commerce failed to support its position that the program is sufficiently limited to an industry.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation of metal lockers from China. Previously, the court sustained Commerce's use of Turkey as the primary surrogate country but remanded the inclusion of rental income and treatment of interest income in calculating Turkish firm Ayes Celikhasir VE CT's profit as part of the surrogate value calculation. In its redetermination, the agency further explained how it treated shipping revenue, incentive income, interest income and rental income in setting the selling, general and administrative expense ratio. No party contested the remand results.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce incorrectly found that the South Korean government's provision of port-usage rights to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. was a countervailable benefit. Since the exporter built the port and was given the right to collect third-party fees in exchange, the port-usage rights are not a benefit but more akin to "consideration."

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce properly hit exporter SeAH Steel Corp. with adverse facts available due to its failure to submit information on its use of the Korean Export-Import Bank Performance Guarantee program prior to the investigation period. The judge said that while a "plain-text reading of Commerce's" instructions shows that the exporter was only required to submit information from the 2020 review period, it falls on the respondent "to clarify its understanding of Commerce's directive" instead of relying on its own interpretation.

The Commerce Department legally excluded importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 26 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce reasonably determined that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and a report from the International Trade Commission, established that the dividers did not belong in the scope of the orders.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 21 opinion granted parts and denied parts of importer Second Nature Designs' motion for judgment in a customs case on decorative items of plant parts. Judge Gary Katzmann said he agreed with Second Nature that "certain categories" of the imports should be classified as "dried items and curled items" under subheading 0604.90.30, free of duty. But for other categories, the court sided with the government's classification as "artificial flowers or fruit" under 0604.90.60, dutiable at 7%. Factual issues plague the remaining categories, the judge said, denying motion for summary judgment on those goods.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to find that importer SMA Surface's Twilight product does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China. Judge Gary Katzmann said SMA Surfaces waived its objections to this finding, which Commerce issued on remand, when the importer "did not brief any arguments specific to Commerce's analysis and explanation." Additionally, the judge said the remand results "adequately addressed" the importer's preliminary objections.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding in the countervailing duty investigations on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. Judge Stephen Vaden said the commission did not properly support its "central" conclusion that the imports depressed prices because their significant volumes "created oversupply conditions in a declining market and low prices." Noting this finding "undergirds" the remaining statutory considerations -- volume, price effects and impact -- Vaden remanded the undersupply analysis with special instructions to also reconsider the volume, price and impact analyses should the commission stick with its initial conclusion.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case on South Korean large power transformers, which allowed respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. to supplement its questionnaire response by providing additional information pertaining to service-related revenues and expenses. The remand period was opened following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that Hyundai should have been given the chance to supplement the record and that Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available was "unsupported by substantial evidence." No party contested the record, so Judge Mark Barnett upheld the remand results.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 14 opinion remanded elements and sustained elements of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco.

Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back Commerce's decision to exclude exporter OCP's selling, general and administrative costs from its cost of production buildup as part of the subsidy finding for the provision of mining rights for less than adequate remuneration. Also as part of this subsidy decision, Stanceu sent back the agency's calculation of OCP's profit rate for calculating the cost of production buildup. The judge also remanded the specificity finding related to the Moroccan program for reductions in tax fines and penalties.

However, Stanceu ruled that Commerce properly started the investigation with adequate industry support; that the agency properly picked an overall profit rate over a surrogate profit rate when calculating the cost of production buildup; and that it legally calculated the world price benchmark for phosphate rock. The judge also affirmed the agency's decision to look into new subsidy allegations discovered during the proceeding.

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce "failed to consider the necessary factors" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit before it used partial adverse facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. due to its suppliers' noncompliance. The agency also failed to justify its decision to deduct surcharges Shanghai Tainai included as extra profit in addition to Section 301 duties when calculating U.S. price, Vaden said. However, the judge sustained Commerce's remaining positions, including its insistence that it deduct the Section 301 duties from U.S. price.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 12 opinion dismissed two counts from exporter HiSteel Co. in a case on the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed as nonjusticiable the counts that challenged the Commerce Department's use of the transactions disregarded rule for HiSteel's reported costs of slitting services and its adjustment of HiSteel's reported scrap offset. He said prevailing on the two claims would not lead to a change in the dumping margin. Katzmann stayed the case, which also contests the agency's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping, pending resolution of Stupp Corp. v. U.S. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 11 opinion ordered litigants in a customs case on GoPro camera cases to address whether any "material facts in dispute" are outstanding or whether the case is "ripe for summary judgment." Judge Timothy Reif said it appears there are lingering questions of fact regarding whether the camera housings feature lens coverings that obstruct the camera's use when enclosed within the housings, whether the camera is functional as a camera and if the camera's spring buttons on the housing are designed to resist pressure.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to reject Section 232 steel and aluminum duty exclusions for three companies, AM/NS Calvert, California Steel Industries and Valbruna Slater Stainless. Judge M. Miller Baker said that if on the remand, the government grants the exclusions, Commerce must tell CBP to "honor the exclusions" on entries that have not finally liquidated "when those requests were originally denied." The judge also rejected the U.S. motion to dismiss the case as to the finally liquidated entries, finding that the Administrative Procedure Act allows for reliquidation of finally liquidated entries since no other statute expressly forbids this relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 7 order upheld the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination in the antidumping duty investigation on fabricated structural steel from China. Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham ruled against the Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction in finding that the ITC did not err by declining to settle an alleged ambiguity in the scope of the domestic like product, deciding that the captive production exception is not applicable and declaring that imports of fabricated structural steel did not lead to significant price effects.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion made public Sept. 4 again sent back the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel-cut-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency must revisit for the second time its decisions not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and to not treat POSCO Plantec, an affiliate of respondent POSCO, as a cross-owned input supplier for the provision of scrap and the converter vessel.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from India. In his Sept. 1 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to use acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of raw honey and that the department was not required to further verify the costs of the beekeepers and intermediary suppliers. Arguments from the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association that Commerce could have used alternate data sources or relied on adverse facts were "without merit," said Barnett. Rather than engaging in a "seemingly pointless verification exercise," Commerce lawfully reviewed data to ensure completeness. After filling gaps in the record with plaintiff-provided information, Commerce found the calculated acquisition costs were below those of respondents Allied Natural Products and Ambrosia Natural Products, making further verification unnecessary, he said.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 25 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency did not support its use of adverse facts available against exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co.'s alleged use of the Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge ruled that Commerce's use of AFA was "critically flawed" since it was based on "missing" information the agency never requested from the Chinese government, adding information from the Chinese state and Yama is sufficient to refute any finding that Yama could have benefited from the program. Stanceu also remanded Commerce's finding that Yama benefited from the provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda for less than adequate remuneration, per the agency's request, since Commerce forgot to add the document it based its finding on to the record.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 25 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded Commerce's pick of Brazil as the primary surrogate nation while using data for log inputs from Malaysia and the agency's decision to revise the Brazilian surrogate value data for plywood. The judge upheld Commerce's calculation of the Brazilian financial ratios and the agency's denial of exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s byproduct offset.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 23 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce legally deducted Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid by exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi from its U.S. price. Noksel argued the government, by increasing the duties solely for goods from Turkey, distinguished the duties from the other Section 232 tariffs. Restani saw "no reason to vary" from past court rulings on this point. The judge also rejected Noksel's bid for a duty drawback adjustment.

In a separate opinion, Restani also upheld the 2018-19 review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Again, the judge upheld the deduction of Section 232 duties from the respondent's U.S. price and rejection of its request for a duty drawback adjustment. Restani also upheld Commerce's denial of respondent Icdas' request for a monthly index methodology to account for the effects of high inflation in Turkey during the review period.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that hardwood plywood made by the Vietnam Finewood Co. using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China is outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said that the scope decision complies with his previous order instructing Commerce to issue a scope ruling in line with the "unambiguous terms" of the orders' scope.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 22 opinion upheld CBP's remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found importer Aspects Furniture International evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP properly relied on statements from CBP employees, which revealed that these employees saw workers in the Chinese manufacturing plants destroying documents. As a result of this conduct observed during verification, the agency levied adverse inferences against the importer. The judge said the adverse inferences and the overall evasion finding were proper given not only the document destruction but the many discrepancies found in Aspects' entry documents when compared to other evidence.

The government cannot collect 20-year-old customs bonds when it took no action to collect them for over a decade, ruled the Court of International Trade in an opinion made public on Aug. 22. Judge Richard Eaton found the six-year statute of limitations on the bonds "began to run at liquidation when all of the events necessary to bring suit for the duties owed had occurred," not when CBP demanded payment. Even if the court agreed that CBP's claim that its action for breach of contract accrued thirty days after AHAC failed to pay, the claims would still be time-barred, said Eaton. Issuing a demand for payment was an act solely within the control of CBP. "Like any prudent litigant, CBP ... must act reasonably in pursuing its claims under a bond," he said.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's decision on remand to stick by its finding that questionnaires issued in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping investigation on forged steel fittings from India satisfied the statute's verification requirement. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency failed to consider the interests of petitioners in relying on Commerce's consistent past practice along with possible alternatives. The judge said the agency must explain what other steps closer to an on-site verification it has considered now and in 2020 and why those were rejected.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce legally found the provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. to be a countervailable benefit and found the reduction for sewerage fees program was not countervailable.

The judge said Commerce reasonably decided to conduct a revenue foregone analysis regarding the port usage instead of a less than adequate remuneration analysis because Hyundai's nonpayment of port usage fees involved a type of financial contribution from foregone revenue when the Korean government gave the company the right to collect revenue from third parties. The judge said the provision of rights under this program conferred a benefit to Hyundai.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 17 again declined to allow a government counterclaim to proceed in an importer's denied protest case, redesignating it as a defense, but Judge Gary Katzmann appeared to leave the door open for the government to collect additional duties from the importer. In the case, which involves the classification of dried botanicals, CIT for the fourth time in just over two years said the government can't file counterclaims in cases brought by importers to challenge denied protests. However, should the government convince the court of its preferred classification as a defense, importer Second Nature Designs "may be liable to the Government for increased duties," Katzmann said in a footnote to the opinion.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 denied a motion by importer Wanxiang America to dismiss a penalty case related to misclassification and failure to pay antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the importer's failure to abide by a CBP notice of action could be considered negligence or gross negligence, even though the notice of action wasn't binding on Wanxiang's subsequent entries. Katzmann also found misclassifications can constitute false statements subject to Section 1592 penalties, though he noted Wanxiang's "well-founded concerns" that mere classification disagreements shouldn't rise to the level of a penalty. He also declined to dismiss a count of negligence based on Wanxiang's arguments that a key scope ruling identifying the importer's goods a subject to antidumping duties had not yet been released.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case in which the agency continued to rely on respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data for prime and non-prime plate. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce's reliance on the exporter's normal books and records as facts otherwise available was not contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case, despite that court finding the respondent's normal books did not reasonably reflect the costs linked with the production of other merchandise. Katzmann said evidence shows that "more than a mere scintilla" supports Dillinger's normal books and records as being "probative" of the missing cost information.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from India. Commerce said on remand that a questionnaire, issued in lieu of on-site verification for sole mandatory respondent Bharat Forge Limited, properly replaced on-site verification after initially saying it did not. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency's decision does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, which said that on remand, an agency can either take new action or further explain its position. Vaden ruled that Commerce cannot "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by reversing itself and asserting that it verified Bharat's information.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said the respondents' quantitative analyses were deficient, but because the agency had not told the respondent that it required more information, it granted the offsets. Judge Timothy Reif sent back the case "in view of Commerce's failure in the instant case to comply with its" statutory obligations.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 3 opinion reversed the Court of International Trade's decision tossing a $5.7 million customs penalty suit from the U.S. against importer Katana Racing for lack of jurisdiction. The trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver, making the government's suit untimely. However, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit" and instead provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived. While the appellate court said CIT erred in tossing the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Katana is still free to claim that its statute of limitations waiver was void as part of an affirmative defense.

The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments brought in before Dec. 1, 2017. CBP made the decision under respectful protest on remand upon finding that DTT did not make false statements to the agency given the court's interpretation of Commerce's understanding of the scope.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a key July 27 opinion held that CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's rights to due process by refusing to allow it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding. The court ruled that the "relatively immutable" principle of due process, where the government must provide access to the evidence used as the basis for an action that seriously injures an individual, extends to administrative proceedings. Judge Timothy Dyk, the author of the opinion, said the court is aware of no such court holding showing that business confidential information is exempt from this rule, adding there is no "legitimate government interest" in refusing to provide access to this information in Enforce and Protect Act cases. The court also said there is no case supporting the government's "extraordinary theory" that it can avoid due process compliance by failing to provide for a protective order.

The Court of International Trade in a July 24 opinion remanded the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Stephen Vaden sent the case back to the Commerce Department so the agency could address alleged errors in the antidumping rate calculation and because the agency did not express a clear rationale for its refusal to address petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co.'s claims on alternate legal grounds to make a particular market situation adjustment.

The Court of International Trade in a July 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judge Mark Barnett issued the opinion in a case consolidating three challenges -- one led by respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., one by respondent Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co. and one from petitioner Calgon Carbon Corp. Barnett sustained Commerce's surrogate values for six activated carbon inputs: carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam, ocean freight and bituminous coal. The judge also upheld the calculation of surrogate financial ratios and Commerce's acceptance of Datong Juqiang's reporting of its bituminous coal consumption.

The government correctly classified counterweights for mini-excavators as "backhoe" parts under tariff subheading 8431.49.9044, meaning that they were not eligible for Section 301 tariff exclusion, ruled the Court of International Trade in a July 21 opinion. Judge Jane Restani sided with the government's dictionary definitions of "backhoe" and "excavator," rather than Norca's industry usage. Even if Norca’s argument about the commercial understanding is correct, "Norca cannot overcome legislative intent," said the court. The CIT cannot accept a commercial meaning that is at odds with the tariff schedule itself, Restani said in her ruling.

The Court of International Trade in a July 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to raise the dumping margins in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duties on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico for mandatory respondents Maquilacero and Prolamsa from 0% to 3.48% and 2.11%, respectively. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly corrected ministerial errors alleged by petitioner Nucor Corp. in Maquilacero's rate by "removing the inadvertent zeros within the calculation programming" and dropping data from the time before the review period. The judge also sustained the agency's decision to fix its currency conversion mistakes made in calculating Prolamsa's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion granted the government's motion to toss Target's case seeking to invalidate a CIT order instructing CBP reliquidate Target's metal-top iron tables at the 72.29% dumping rate instead of the original 9.47% rate. Judge Leo Gordon said that were Target to succeed, the result would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Court Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that Commerce's reliance on unverified data from respondent Saffron Living Co. was illegal. While the government claimed that because Commerce was unable to verify Saffron's information it could use the exporter's information as facts otherwise available, Baker said this reading would "eviscerate the separate requirement" that Commerce verify all information relied on in making a final determination. The judge also sent back Commerce's refusal to apply either transactions disregarded or major input rules in light of evidence of Saffron's substantial affiliated-party transactions, dubbing the government's defense "anemic."

The Court of International Trade sent back parts of the Commerce Department's 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Judge M. Miller Baker said that while Commerce understands the concepts of sameness and comparability to "represent different concepts" when picking surrogate nations, the agency "misapplied the statutory standard" by excluding candidate surrogates that had a comparable level of economic development. The judge also upheld Commerce's decision not to grant exporter Dotaseafood a higher rate beyond the countrywide margin for failing to cooperate to the best of its ability given that the company did not rebut the presumption of state control. Lastly, Baker said exporter Nam Viet was legally granted a separate rate after the judge refused to reweigh evidence regarding the company's reporting of its affiliates.

The Court of International Trade in a July 14 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce adequately explained its decision to reject exporter Nexteel's accounting method and classify the company's losses related to the suspension of its production lines as general and administrative expenses instead of costs of goods sold. The judge also said Commerce answered the court's previous questions on which of Nexteel's production lines were suspended during which parts of the review period and on whether the agency differentiates among suspension periods based on when they occur in the review period.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of July 13 opinions dismissed two lawsuits, one from importer PrimeSource Building Products and the other from Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products, challenging President Donald Trump's move to expand the Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives." The order comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate after finding that the expansion, made beyond procedural time limits, was legal. Relying on its prior decision in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., the court said that a tariff move made outside these limits is permissible so long as it fits under the duties' original plan of action.

The Court of International Trade on July 12 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on voluntary remand to slash the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review on diamond sawblades from China from 82.05% to 41.03%. The case had been stayed pending the resolution of Bosun Tools v. U.S., in which Commerce originally used the 82.05% adverse facts available rate in an earlier review given that the mandatory respondents were uncooperative. The agency slashed the rate in that case as well, leading to an identical move in the present case led by exporter Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co.

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 opinion remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia. Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's tier-three benchmark calculation for natural gas, which included the import-specific 20% value-added tax and 5% import duty, along with the agency's decision to countervail phosphate rock mining licenses issued by the Russian government to exporters EuroChem and PhosAgro. Restani sent back Commerce's decision to use a "Profit Before Tax" figure to account for exported phosphate rock prices when calculating PhosAGro's profit ratio. The judge also remanded Commerce's reliance on PhosAgro's cost information and its explanation for why it found EuroChem's cost information supported.

The Court of International Trade in a July 7 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce failed to adequately explain why it deviated from its past finding that exporter KG Dongbu Steel's first through third debt-to-equity restructurings were not countervailable. The evidence cited by the agency in justifying deviating from this practice did not directly deal with these three restructurings and is thus "not a sufficient explanation to justify departing from its standard practice," the judge said. Choe-Groves also sent back Commerce's uncreditworthy benchmark rate since Commerce failed to address potentially contradictory evidence.

The Court of International Trade on July 7 remanded a case contesting an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The still-confidential order from Judge M. Miller Baker directs Commerce to reconsider its surrogate country selection process and to consider countries at a “comparable level of economic development” as potential surrogates on an equal basis with countries Commerce deems to be at “the same level of economic development” (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380).

Commerce picked India as a surrogate for Vietnam despite Indonesia producing "identical and comparable merchandise" that more closely resembles the Vietnamese market. Indonesia produces and exports more than India and has more reliable data, plaintiff Catfish Farmers of America argued in its 2021 complaint (see 2108300051).

The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's denial of exporter GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review for the purposes of countervailing duties on softwood lumber products from Canada. GreenFirst sought the review after it acquired Rayonier A.M. Canada's lumber mills, arguing it is entitled to RYAM's "non-selected" CVD rate rather than the 14.19% all-others rate. Judge Claire Kelly remanded Commerce's decision not to start the review for the second time, finding the agency did not address her question of why Commerce's successor-in-interest practice is reasonable for non-individually examined companies.

The Court of International Trade in a June 22 opinion made public June 30 upheld CBP's affirmative evasion finding related to imports of hardwood plywood from American Pacific Plywood, Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest. CBP said the companies skirted antidumping and countervailing duties on the plywood from China by transshipping their imports through Cambodia. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that the importers' due process claims relating to their lack of access to confidential information fell flat since they failed to claim that the public summaries of the information were insufficient. The judge added that CBP didn't misapply the substantial evidence standard in the investigation, contrary to the importers' claims. Baker said the companies conflated "evidence" with "concrete proof."

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse exporter Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. with the already-collapsed entity of Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Synn Industrial Co. as part of the antidumping duty investigation into corrosion resistant steel (CORE) products from Taiwan. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's opinion upholding the collapsing decision, Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce properly weighed the evidence to find the evidence was insufficient to show a significant potential for manipulation between Prosperity and Yieh Phui. The decision was made despite members of the same family owning both companies. The result was a 11.04% margin for Prosperity and a de minimis 1.20% margin for the Yieh Phui/Synn entity.

The Court of International Trade on June 23 upheld Commerce's use of likely selling price instead of actual costs of production to calculate the cost of production of non-prime merchandise, after German exporter Dillinger failed to populate the record with actual COP data for the non-prime goods in an antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon also sustained the use of partial adverse facts available on exporter Salzgitter due to its failure to report around 28,000 downstream sales. But the judge remanded the agency's rejection of Dillinger's proposed quality code for sour transport plate as part of the agency's model-match methodology because a previous court opinion rejected that methodology.

The Court of International Trade in a June 21 opinion rejected the U.S. motion to dismiss one count of a suit brought by Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The plaintiffs challenged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 findings that New Zealand's standards for its West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries were comparable with U.S. regulations. The U.S. said that because the comparability findings expired, the claims were moot. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while injunctive relief against the findings were moot, one element of Sea Shepherd's argument was live because it's capable of repetition and evading review.

The Court of International Trade in a June 20 opinion upheld CBP's finding that importer Skyview Cabinet evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that, contrary to Skyview's claims, CBP supported its conclusion with substantial evidence and that Skyview failed to show its goods were made in Malaysia. Vaden added that CBP properly used adverse facts available given foreign manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen's refusal to provide any requested information and that the agency did not violate the company's due process rights.

The Court of International Trade granted three conservation groups' bid to dismiss a suit seeking to compel the Interior Department to respond to a request to certify Mexico had not done enough to curb illegal fishing and trade of the totoaba fish, further threatening the endangered vaquita porpoise. The conservation groups and Interior reached a settlement in April, under which the agency made the certification, which allows the president to impose restrictions on trade with Mexico.

In a separate opinion, the trade court redesignated the government's counterclaim in a customs spat on boronized steel tubing. Judge Claire Kelly said there was no statutory basis for the U.S. to make a counterclaim in a customs case, reclassifying the government's claims as a defense. The U.S. is claiming the tubes, originally classified as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly listed as steel tubes and subject to Section 301 duties.

The Court of International Trade, in a pair of opinions authored by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, and sustained Commerce's remand results in a suit on the antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.

In the CVD review, Choe-Groves granted the agency's voluntary remand request regarding its constructed value, CV profit cap and constructed export price profit calculations for exporter Hyundai Steel using a different company's third-country sales data. However, Choe-Groves sustained Commerce's adjustment of Hyundai's general and administrative expense ratio and use of a neutral facts available adjustment to Hyundai Steel USA's reported further manufacturing costs to account for yield loss.

In the AD review, Choe-Groves upheld Commerce's finding that information submitted by respondent New Continent was accurate, ruled that exporter Pirelli failed to raise its claim regarding Commerce's authority to set a China-wide entity rate, held that the agency properly found that Pirelli failed to rebut the presumption of government control, and rejected Pirelli's claim that certain elements of Italian law do not rebut the presumption of government control.

The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained Commerce's classification of surrogate values for aluminum dross/ash byproduct and rolling oil and rolling oil additive inputs, along with the agency's selection of Maersk data to calculate freight costs. The judge also upheld Commerce's decision not to grant a double remedies adjustment for subsidies to inputs that respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. said were countervailable. Lastly, Baker rejected Zhongji's bid to have Commerce modify its liquidation instructions to include the phrase "resold or imported."

The Court of International Trade on June 7 remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation on raw honey from Argentina. CIT Judge Claire Kelly remanded the department's decision to use Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for Argentinian beekeeper's production costs and its decision to compare Nexco's third-country sales and U.S. sales. However, the court did agree with Commerce's decision to compare Nexco's costs on a monthly basis for the purposes of the sales-below cost test and sustained that aspect, saying that Commerce reasonably explained its decision.

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on metal lockers from China. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the investigation so that Commerce can reconsider its treatment of surrogate company Ayes Celikhasir's "incentive income," "shipping revenues," "rental income" and "interest income" when calculating surrogate financial ratios. The judge sustained Commerce's treatment of certain other real operating income categories. Barnett also upheld the agency's determination that Ayes made comparable merchandise with the goods under investigation while plaintiff List Industries' preferred surrogate company, Grupo Carso, did not.

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of CBP's classification of importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods' 14 different mixtures of frozen fruit, five of which have frozen vegetable ingredients. Judge Stephen Vaden said the merchandise is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811 since the term "Fruit ... frozen" describes these goods in whole. However, this term does not cover the five mixture types with vegetable ingredients, though the judge added that Nature's Touch's preferred heading, 2106, does not fit either. Vaden ultimately found that the goods are properly classified under subheading 0811.90.80, dutiable at 14.5%, despite both parties' objections that this subheading excludes mixtures.

The Commerce Department legally found that Chinese respondents in an antidumping investigation and review failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, the Court of International Trade ruled in a pair of opinions. In a suit contesting the 2015-16 review of the AD order on off-the-road tires from China, Judge Timothy Stanceu said Guizhou Tyre did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state control of the company's export functions, failing its bid for a separate rate. In a case on the AD investigation on truck and bus tires from China, Stanceu ruled that Guizhou Tyre and Double Coin both failed to rebut the presumption of government control of their export functions.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 upheld the Commerce Department's denial of separate rate status to Chinese exporters Guizhou Tyre Import and Export (GTC) and Aeolus Tyre and the agency's assignment of the "China-wide" AD rate of 105.31% in an antidumping review on off-road tires from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that Commerce's methodology "exists apart from the provisions in the Tariff Act and regulations," and there was no statutory language, legislative history or regulatory language to lead the court to conclude that Commerce's methodology was unreasonable. The court also recognized Commerce's discretion to "draw reasonable inferences" from evidence on the record, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton remanded Commerce's surrogate financial ratio calculation for manufacturing overhead and the agency's surrogate value for labor while upholding the surrogate value determination for glue. The judge ruled Commerce engaged in mere speculation by finding that using the indirect production expenses data from a Romanian company's financial statement could be distortive in the overhead calculation. Eaton also found that there was "no source at all" for Commerce's use of 24 working days per month as part of its surrogate labor value calculation.

A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ninhbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.

The Commerce Department legally found that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control when it levied a 105.31% China-wide rate in the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that absent a statute or regulation governing the presumption of government control in AD cases, "the court lacks a basis to conclude that Commerce acted contrary to law in exercising its broad discretion" by centering its analysis on how Double Coin's government-owned majority shareholder influences the selection and supervision of management.

The Court of International Trade ruled that Turkish exporter Erdemir failed to show the court should revisit its past order allowing four U.S. steel companies to intervene in a case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination on imports of hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Judge Timothy Reif said the four companies make arguments that share a common question of law or fact with the case's main action, would be adversely affected if the court were to rule in Erdemir's favor and would not unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights. However, Reif continued to deny U.S. Steel Corp.'s right to intervene, finding the company did not explain how it would be adversely affected by the decision.

The Court of International Trade determined May 9 that Commerce Department reasonably found it does not need to incorporate offsets for the costs of complying with Germany's Electricity and Energy Tax Acts into countervailing duty rate calculations for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen. Ruling on Commerce's remand results in a case on the CVD investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, Judge Claire Kelly also remanded the agency's finding of de jure specificity for Germany's KAV program. The judge said Commerce failed to explain how the criteria for the program are economic in nature and horizontal in application.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 countervailing duty review on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam. The court previously sent back the case so that Commerce could consider evidence relating to respondent CS Wind Vietnam's potential manipulation of its CVD margin. Judge Timothy Reif said the agency provided a reasonable explanation of its findings that CS Wind Vietnam was not manipulating the denominator in its subsidy calculation and that the steel plate in question was sourced from Vietnam.

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's remand results finding that MSeafood Corp. did not evade antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India by transshipping its products through Vietnam. Judge Claire Kelly said she found CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate's affirmative evasion finding unsupported but sustained the CBP's Office of Regulations and Ruling's negative evasion finding. The judge added that, while she found CBP's explanation of its treatment of confidential information "inadequate," the deficiency is "harmless given the judicial protective order issued in the case."

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. After initially being instructed to find a practical solution to the issue of verifying non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce asked CVD respondents Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. and the Ancientree Cabinet Co. to submit all loan information for each U.S. customer. Meisen found the information irrelevant and did not submit it in the form requested by the agency, while Ancientree submitted loan information for around 90% of its customers. Judge Richard Eaton upheld the use of adverse facts available on Meisen but sent back the decision for Ancientree, finding that perfection is not required to verify non-use.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 upheld a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation determination that found CEK Group had evaded an antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from China. Judge Jane Restani noted that the standard for initiation of an EAPA investigation is low and that the "voluminous evidence" provided in M&B’s allegation met both the government’s and CEK’s proposed standards of "reasonable suggestion." It's also "undisputed" that during the investigation CEK and Thai exporter and manufacturer NWH failed to respond to CBP's information requests, justifying the use of adverse inferences, said Restani.

A product's use is not a consideration regarding its classification at the subheading level when neither Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading the product could belong to is a use provision, the Court of International Trade ruled. Finding that ME Global’s heat-treated forged steel rods fell under CBP’s preferred classification of subheading 7228.40.00 as “other bars and rods, not further worked than forged,” Judge Richard Eaton said that ME Global could not use the products’ use nor reference to a subheading given that the court was evaluating two eo nomine headings. Eaton added that heading 7228 was more specific than 7236 and that subheading 7228.40.00 was more specific than 7228.30.80.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judges Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark ruled that Commerce properly picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate country, valued bituminous coal with a known calorific value using Malaysian Harmonized System subheading 2701.19 and valued bituminous coal with an unknown calorific value using Romanian HS subheading 2701.12. Stark, the author of the opinion, said the appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., failed to exhaust arguments against the valuation of coal tar pitch.

The Court of International Trade granted in part and remanded in part motions by the U.S. and petitioner Florida Tomato Exchange to dismiss challenges to several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, and subsequent suspension agreements. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the court has jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the AD investigation, which is under a suspension agreement, but does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to Commerce's decision to terminate a suspension agreement.

The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results April 28 after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131). Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce’s selection of Malaysian data to value carbonized material was supported by substantial evidence. While each review is separate, Commerce is not prevented from acting in accord with prior reviews when the present review does not contain new information warranting a departure from prior practice, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of opinions upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece and in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea.

In the CVD case, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's method for setting the adequacy of remuneration as it relates to the provision of electricity in South Korea. The judge said Commerce legally analyzed whether the Korean Electric Power Corp.'s tariff rates were set in line with market principles via its evaluation of whether KEPCO's income from its prices charged for each consumption category covers its costs plus profits for each category.

In the AD case, Judge Leo Gordon said Commerce did not unreasonably change its methodology when it changed the response to Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry's margin from zero to total adverse facts available given that Corinth's reported costs were not reconciled to its normal books and records. Gordon also upheld the agency's use of total AFA given "crucial nature of the information" deemed missing.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on rebar from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said that, with respect to Commerce's attribution to respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret of subsidies received by affiliated ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, the agency didn't adequately explain its finding Nur was a cross-owned input supplier of primarily dedicated inputs. Commerce erroneously said that since it previously found that "scrap" is an input primarily dedicated to the production of downstream steel products, "it is a matter of routine." Katzmann ruled this prior decision was fact-specific and not applicable to the present case.

The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held April 25. Reversing a Court of International Trade ruling concerning imports of certain softwood lumber products from Canada, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto said that authority for the review process is found in the Uruguay Round Agreement Act's enactment of certain provisions that favor individual company determinations and the URAA's "grant of regulatory-implementation power to Commerce." Taranto, the opinion's author, added that logically, it is clear why an expedited process may be needed to ensure that the individualized determination preference of the statute is implemented.

In a separate opinion, the appellate court upheld CBP's decision not to grant credit to customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae for two questions on the exam. While the three-judge panel granted Chae credit for one of three questions he challenged, that was not sufficient to bring him up to the 75% threshold needed to pass the test.

The Commerce Department legally refused to adjust its model-match method related to coding for pasta's protein content in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy, the Court of International Trade ruled. Respondent La Molisana said the agency's "breakpoint" of 12.5% protein content did not reflect the market reality, offering evidence that showed the true point separating premium from regular pasta was 13.5% protein content. Judge Richard Eaton said the company's evidence, while unrebutted, was not applicable industry-wide, making it "unreliable and insufficient."

The Court of International Trade remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that found that two-ply panels imported from China to Vietnam fell under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the scope language and the (k)(1) sources confirm the unambiguous meaning of the orders' scope, which excludes the two-ply panels. The court also upheld Commerce's rejection of Interglobal Forest's initial and rebuttal scope comments and ordered that Vietnam Finewood Co. be dismissed from the case since the company dissolved in 2019.

Correction: The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the final results of an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum for the Commerce Department to reconsider its use of adverse facts available when it assigned a dumping rate of 154.07% to Chinese producer Meihua Group, its separate rate calculation for two other respondents, and whether it could combine Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. into a single entity. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce failed to fulfill its statutory obligation by not swiftly informing Meihua of a deficiency in its submission before determining it failed to cooperate.

The Court of International Trade upheld in part and sent back in part the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on uncoated paper from Brazil. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled Commerce properly found that respondent Suzano's derivative losses were not investment losses or extraordinary. Suzano had said the losses were extraordinary and thus should be excluded from its costs of production.

The court also upheld parts and sent back parts of Commerce's remand results in a spat over the 2015-16 antidumping duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly found a particular market situation did not exist affecting the inputs of OCTG in South Korea. However, the judge remanded the agency's use of 0.8 as a threshold in the test used to root out "masked" dumping and its consideration of certain academic materials.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the final results of an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum for the Commerce Department to reconsider its use of adverse facts available when it assigned a dumping rate of 154.07% to Chinese producer Meihua Group, its separate rate calculation for two other respondents, and whether it could combine Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. into a single entity. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce failed to fulfill its statutory obligation by not swiftly informing Meihua of a deficiency in its submission before determining it failed to cooperate.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce legally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity was for less than adequate remuneration but did not confer a benefit. The agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade dismissed a suit from SXP Schultz Xtruded Products seeking a refund of Section 232 duties on four different entries for which an exclusion was granted, saying the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Jennier Choe-Groves said SXP would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) if it filed a protest to contest CBP's liquidation of the entries. The judge noted the contradiction in SXP's arguments on the futility of filing a protest since the importer timely filed a protest for a fifth entry of the same goods, leading to a refund of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's decision that antidumping respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. was not entitled to a separate duty rate in the 2016-17 administrative review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China since the company did not rebut the presumption of de facto state control. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes ruled the decision was reasonable since a labor union, which is affiliated with the Chinese government, is the majority shareholder of Zhejiang "and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's ruling that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision via evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities. While the judges found that Commerce erred in not considering exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's arguments over the value added in its UAE production processes, the court said this was a harmless error.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China. Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products raised several challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection that Judge Mark Barnett found unconvincing. The court did not address whether the surrogate data Commerce used was the best available but only "whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information," Barnett said in his April 11 opinion. "Although Commerce’s explanation is not as thorough as it could be, the court can discern the agency’s path of reasoning," Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking Section 301 exclusions on 31 entries for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, but he ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to include in the case's amended complaint key information about the merchandise at issue.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of its final results of its first administrative review of the antidumping order on glycine from Japan. Judge Alexander Vaden remanded for Commerce to reconsider its determination that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge found that Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law and that Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error and cannot use the court to force a correction from Commerce.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the sixth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not properly use adverse facts available for respondent Risen Energy Co.'s alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, finding the exporter provided enough gap-filling information from its customers to show that 95% of its sales did not benefit from the EBCP. Restani also sent back the agency's use of a 2010 CBRE market view report for Thailand in its land benchmark calculation and Commerce's use of Descartes data to value ocean freight.

The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation of certain steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Claire Kelly ruled Commerce appeared to have misinterpreted a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that asked Commerce to better support its reasoning for using simple averages despite citing contradictory literature in previous cases.

The Court of International Trade on March 31 denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu. Judge Jane Restani disagreed with Liu's argument that the statute of limitations ran from the time he directed the false entry filing and had expired, saying Congress specifically established that the statute of limitations in penalty cases is five years from the date of entry and that the courts have consistently held that the entry date is the moment that the statute begins to run.

The Court of International Trade in a March 21 opinion made public March 29 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce properly rejected a benchmark submission from the respondents, led by Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., and legally calculated the benchmark for the primary aluminum program. Reif remanded the case on the grounds that the agency did not properly explain its decision to pick the Trade Data Monitor data source to calculate the aluminum plate/sheet program benchmark or its selection of data to calculate the benchmark for the land program.

The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cellphone case-maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity applies only to interest on deposits that are linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific wavier of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.

Consistent classification of imported child safety seats for bicycles as seats rather than bicycle parts by the port of New York/Newark constitutes a "treatment" by CBP, Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled in a March 24 opinion, granting summary judgment for importer Kent International. CBP classified some of the seats under subheading 8714.99.80 "other" bicycle parts, which carried a 10% duty rate. Kent claimed that the items were seats under the duty-free subheading 9401.80 and that CBP had violated the treatment provision with its classifications.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied motions for judgment from both an importer and the government in a case involving the valuation of allegedly defective plywood. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves found that "genuine issues of material fact exist" as to the salvage value of the plywood, whether all the plywood was indeed defective, whether the importer, Bral, can tie the defective plywood to specific entries, and how the defects violate the underlying contract with the supplier.

The Court of International Trade sustained three antidumping and countervailing duty cases March 20, and uphold parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's determination in a fourth. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves decided all four cases.

In a case led by respondent Marmen on the AD investigation of utility scale wind towers from Canada, the trade court upheld Commerce's rejection of Marmen's additional cost reconciliation information and use of the Cohen's d test to detect masked dumping. Choe-Groves said the agency's use of a population instead of a sample negates the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the use of the test.

In a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, the judge sustained Commerce's decision that respondent Shandong New Continent's export price and constructed export price information was accurate. Choe-Groves also backed Commerce's finding that "the record did not support that New Continent was affiliated with two other companies considered in the review."

In a third opinion, the court upheld Commerce's decision to withdraw a questionnaire and reject respondent Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer's questionnaire response in a proceeding involving the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on aluminum wire and cable from China.

The judge also upheld parts and remanded parts of Commerce's AD investigation into mattresses from Indonesia. Choe-Groves upheld the agency's use of a quarterly ratios methodology to set the quantity of mattresses sold, its use of Emirates Sleep Systems Private's financial information in finding constructed value, calculation of a profit cap and adjustment to reported sales deduction of Zinus U.S. The court sent back Commerce's inclusion of mattresses in transit from Indonesia at the end of the investigation period, adjustments to Zinus Korea's selling expenses to account for actual selling expenses and application of the Transactions Disregarded Rule.

The Court of International Trade upheld the U.S. Trade Representative's Lists 3 and 4A tariff action under Section 301 on China in a widely-anticipated decision on March 17. After the tariffs were previously sent back over concerns of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the USTR offered further explanations of its tariff decisions. Judges Mark Barnet, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that these explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.

The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the International Trade Commission's finding of critical circumstances in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on small vertical shaft engines from China because of a surge in imports shortly before the antidumping and countervailing duties took effect. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled against plaintiff MTD Products' arguments that the ITC used faulty data and improperly weighed the data it did use. MTD said the ITC based its findings on export data subject to large lead times, inaccurate comparison periods and artificial increases in volume due to COVID-19. Baker said the "court will not second-guess" the ITC's findings.

The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation into aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "easily" defeated respondent Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi's challenge to Commerce's use of a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification since Teknik cited no authority requiring the agency to carry out a certain verification procedure during a global pandemic. Baker also upheld Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available over Teknik's failure to submit screenshots of audited financial statements and ledgers, citing Teknik's failure to submit certain information in the form and manner requested.

The Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham held that President Donald Trump's Proclamation 9705 imposing the duties made clear the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. The appellate court also clarified that this ruling applies only to Proclamation 9705 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.

The Court of International Trade ruled March 13 that CBP properly classified as steel tubing, not insulating fittings, the carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating imported by Shamrock Building Materials. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the "uncontested facts show" that the subject merchandise is not, as Shamrock claimed, insulating material under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547 per the meaning of that term as used in the heading's description.

The Court of International Trade issued a pair of opinions on March 10. In one, brought by Printing Textiles, Judge Timothy Stanceu dismissed the customs action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The company filed the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, challenging CBP's denial of its protests on its Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric. Printing Textiles said that the entries weren't subject to the antidumping order and that the Commerce Department had initiated a scope request on the company's imports. Stanceu said jurisdiction could have been available under Section 1581(a) or Section 1581(c) should Commerce find the imports to be in the scope of the order.

Judge Leo Gordon, in the second opinion, upheld Commerce's remand results in an AD review on solar cells from China. The agency included certain sales from respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corp. as U.S. sales, since the exporter had constructive knowledge that the sales were destined for the U.S.

The Court of International Trade in a March 10 upheld the Commerce Department's final scope decision that antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China cover a type of aluminum sheet AA Metals imported from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not just rely on the plain language of the scope alone but considered various (k)(1) factors. AA Metals claimed it wasn't given a chance to remedy a deficiency on the record, leading the agency to include its imports under the orders. Restani said AA Metals' answers had no such deficiencies and Commerce has no obligation to vet corrections every time it makes a decision in conflict with a party's position.

The Court of International Trade in a March 1 opinion made public March 8 sent back parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, ruling the Commerce Department did not properly explain its decision not to use an adverse inference for its treatment of respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments. Judge Gary Katzmann also remanded the case, per Commerce's request, over the agency's duty neutral method for calculating Assan's duty drawback adjustment. Katzmann upheld Assan's duty drawback adjustment itself, Commerce's denial of a home market rebate adjustment to Assan and the agency's reliance on Assan's affiliated freight costs.

The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of unliquidated activated carbon entries from separate rate respondents Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon. Judge Mark Barnett said that he was unpersuaded by the government's claims that the PI motion illegally expands the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, the judge held the enlargement concept is reserved only for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.

The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case which slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A questionnaire response originally rejected as untimely filed. The document was turned in late due to technical complications as a result of firm Barnes Richardson's switch to a work-from-home environment. The court remanded the issue since Commerce gave itself numerous extensions while rejecting the two-hour late submission.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a March 2 opinion upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that found solar panel mounts made by appellant China Custom Manufacturing do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham ruled that the matter is "governed squarely" by the Federal Circuit's ruling in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., where the court said that a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product." CCM had admitted that its mounts are parts of its solar panel mounting system.

The Court of International Trade released a trio of opinions Feb. 27, covering customs, import misclassification penalty and antidumping cases.

In the customs classification case, brought by Cyber Power Systems (USA), Judge Leo Gordon held that one model of the importer's uninterruptible power supplies was properly marked as "Made in the Philippines," but the remaining four models of the supplies, plus one model of surge voltage protectors, should have been marked as "Made in China."

In the customs penalty case, Judge M. Miller Baker denied importer Crown Cork & Seal USA's bid to dismiss the government's fraud and gross negligence counts. The judge said the fraud claim is sufficiently specific and both claims clear the notice requirements of Rule 8 as set in the Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal cases.

In the antidumping proceeding, Baker blasted the Commerce Department's use of a total adverse facts available rate of 154.33% for steel nail exporter Oman Fasteners over one 16-minute late submission, characterizing it as "the very definition of abuse of discretion." Lambasting Commerce's "draconian sanction" for which it "made no effort to justify," the judge consolidated Oman Fasteners' motion for a preliminary injunction with trial on the merits and granted judgment on the agency record. Baker enjoined Oman Fasteners from paying the cash deposits pending another order from the court.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, ruling that the agency "adequately addressed" questions raised by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the use of the test. The appellate court had held that use of the d test could be "problematic" when the distribution of a respondent's sales isn't normal, or in cases of few data points or minimal variance in the exporter's sales. Judge Claire Kelly held that Commerce sufficiently explained that the test adequately functions despite those concerns.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 opinion denied plaintiff Grupo Simec's bid for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case covering rebar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said Grupo Simec failed to clear the "high standard" of proving it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction because the company failed to show the "immediacy" of the harm it would suffer should it continue to pay cash deposits.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion made public Feb. 24 upheld the Commerce Department's interpretation of the Major Inputs Rule to allow the use of third-country surrogate data as "information available" for finding the cost of production of a major input bought from an affiliated non-market economy-based supplier.

Ruling on a number of first-impression arguments in an antidumping case, Judge Gary Katzmann also held that Commerce's interpretation of "market under consideration" in the Transactions Disregarded Rule to only mean the country under investigation "is unreasonably inflexible and inconsistent with prior practice."

The court further ruled that the agency's continued inclusion of NME and export-subsidizing countries in the surrogate data was not congruous with other reasoning in the AD case's final determination. Katzmann said Commerce's findings that the financial statement it picked was publicly available and sufficiently complete "were unreasonable." The judge also dismissed one count of the complaint, filed by Best Mattresses International challenging the use of Cohen's d test, saying use the test did not have affect the dumping margin.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 23 order denied antidumping respondent SeAH Steel's request for reconsideration of the court's opinion upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis. SeAH said the case should be reconsidered given the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in Stupp v. U.S. calling into question the use of the test, which is used to root out "masked" dumping. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled the use of an entire population of data rather than just a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised in Stupp.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 16 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation into wind towers from Spain. In the investigation, Commerce picked only one mandatory respondent, hitting it with a 73% adverse facts available rate taken from the petitioner after the company backed out of the investigation. The agency used this rate for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate. Judge Timothy Stanceu, criticizing the "limited and peculiar" situation the agency set up for itself, sent back Commerce's decision to pick only one respondent and use the AFA rate for the all-others margin.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's finding that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's tires do not qualify for an exclusion to the antidumping duty order on light truck spare tires, despite the petitioner originally agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires. Judge Stephen Vaden said it is not his job "to save Cheng Shin from itself," given the negotiated exclusion required the tires must be "designed and marketed exclusively" as temporary-use light truck tires, and Cheng Shin submitted evidence showing its tires were not exclusively designed and marketed as such.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 10 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the case for Commerce to consider information relating to the prevailing market conditions, such as price, quality and other conditions of purchase or sale, when determining whether a benefit was conferred to respondent Hyundai Steel from the South Korea's government provision of port usage rights. Choe-Groves also granted Commerce's voluntary remand request over sewerage usage fees after it said it learned more about the program.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion again called the Commerce Department's non-market economy policies into question, sending back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the fifth administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China. On remand, Commerce continued to find that AD respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. failed to show that it was not controlled by the Chinese state. Judge Richard Eaton said that since Commerce has not shown its policy of assigning mandatory respondents the one non-market economy rate to have either statutory or regulatory backing, the agency must reconsider how it legally hit Jilin with the China-wide rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion rejected Meyer Corp.'s bid for first sale treatment of its cookware imports, with Judge Thomas Aquilino denying the importer's request for a retrial. The judge held firm on a prior judgment in the case -- before it was appealed to the Federal Circuit -- which held that, because the court doesn't know the extent to which parent company Meyer Holdings had the ability to influence the price paid for the goods sold between affiliates, the use of first sale was not supported.

Then-President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products, despite implementing the expansion beyond certain procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on its 2021 opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said the president can adjust the tariffs beyond the time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out by the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said the president can take action against derivatives despite the Commerce Department secretary not having individually investigated these articles. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Kara Stoll said the expansion to steel derivatives was within Section 232's authorization of presidential action.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 6 dismissed importer Acquisition 362's challenge of CBP's countervailing duty assessments, ruling it did not have jurisdiction because the importer failed to file a protest. Acquisition 362, which does business as Strategic Import Supply, had argued it didn't need to file the protest because there was nothing to protest within 180 days of the tire imports at issue being liquidated. Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes ruled a protest was needed nonetheless, holding the 180-day deadline to file a protest challenging a CBP decision runs from the date of liquidation and not from the date of Commerce's antidumping and countervailing duty instructions.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum pending Endura's impending appeal of a separate CIT decision over a scope ruling involving Columbia's imports. In that decision, the court upheld the exclusion of the plaintiff's door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the stay motion failed to show it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion made public Feb. 1 upheld CBP's decision to find that importer Leco Supply evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on wire hangers from Vietnam. Leco argued that CBP illegally started the investigation; CBP's decision was not backed by substantial evidence; CBP denied Leco procedural due process; and CBP abused its discretion by refusing to accept Leco's written arguments during the remand proceeding. Judge Mark Barnett sided with the government on all four points.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order granted a U.S. motion to add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for antidumping respondent Grupo Simec to the record in a case on an AD review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said the analysis is "properly part of the record" because the Commerce Department considered it in making the review's final decision, and "Commerce's decision cannot properly be reviewed without its inclusion." The judge added there is no "compelling evidence Commerce acted in bad faith," despite Grupo Simec's claim the agency did just that when it only sought to add the document to the record four months after the final results.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 opinion dismissed a case from J.D. Irving on the Commerce Department's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, because jurisdiction would have been available under Section 1581(c), "but for the decision" by parties involved to request a binational panel review of the AD review under the USMCA. The true nature of the case challenges Commerce's final results in the review and not the cash deposit instructions, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 order sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluoroethylene from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that, on remand, Commerce must drop the 26.5% estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land by the State Industrial Development Corp. and reconsider the estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land from the Gujarat Industrial Development Corp.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 23 order sent back the Commerce Department's decision to deny NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests for certain steel slabs. Judge Claire Kelly found Commerce did not properly support its positions that the exclusion objectors offered a "suitable substitute" for the steel slab needed by NLMK and could provide NLMK with enough quantity.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 18 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping review on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said comments from petitioner Nucor Tubular Products on ministerial errors present in the rate calculations for respondents Maquilacero and Prolamsa were improperly denied as untimely. The comments qualify for an exception to the rule that the notes be timely filed because the errors arose after the review's final results, the judge said.

In an unrelated opinion also issued on Jan. 18, the trade court upheld Commerce's scope ruling that found window wall system kits are outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China because they are a "finished goods kit." Judge Stephen Vaden said the scope ruling is consistent with prior scope rulings and said Commerce properly supported its finding that the window wall system kits are finished good kits.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Dec. 22 opinion made public Jan. 13 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce properly used adverse facts available for respondent Sino-Maple based on the company's failure to provide constructed export price information on a per-transaction basis for U.S. sales that third-country manufacturers made to its U.S. affiliate. The judge, however, sent back the AFA rate itself, finding the agency can't set the AFA rate for one respondent at the highest transaction-specific margin for the other respondent. Eaton also upheld Commerce's decisions to reject separate rate applications from Scholar Home and Baishan Huafeng.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 11 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the antidumping review of large power transformers from South Korea. On remand, Commerce hit respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems with total adverse facts available for missing service-related revenues and the exporter's failure of the completeness test at verification. Judge Mark Barnett said substantial evidence backed the use of total AFA, as opposed to partial AFA as claimed by Hyundai.

The trade court issued a second, unrelated opinion Jan. 12 that upheld parts and sent back parts of Commerce's final scope ruling on crushed glass surface products from China. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce's decision to include three glass surface products imported by SMA Surfaces under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China was legal "but only partially justified by substantial evidence." The interpretation of the orders "was consistent with plain text," though substantial evidence supports including only two of the three contested products, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders.

The Commerce Department properly found it had enough industry support to kick off the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products (QSP) from India, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Jan. 5 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's ruling, Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Sharon Prost ruled that Commerce permissibly found the term "producer" did not include QSP fabricators and backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via its six-factor production-related activities test.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 20 opinion made public Jan. 4 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. In the remand results, Commerce dropped its use of partial adverse facts available for unreported factors of production data, reverting to neutral facts available, and changed how it values silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency maintained positions previously sent back by the trade court on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate using surrogate data, offering new explanations now to Judge Claire Kelly's liking.