The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 largely dismissed importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA's suit challenging the Commerce Department's denial of its Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge Stephen Vaden said the company's claims that Commerce failed to act since it didn't perform three required actions for each denial fall short, since the agency didn't fail to act. A denial isn't an "action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed: It is a decision," the court said. The court also dismissed most of Prysmian's challenges to the denials as being arbitrary and capricious, finding them to have been brought beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations for challenging Section 232 exclusion request denials.

The Commerce Department appropriately declined to countervail three debt-to-equity swaps received by exporter KG Dongbu Steel in the 2019 CVD review of corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 17. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the evidence doesn't support a finding that the government pressured nongovernmental institutions to take part in the company's debt restructuring. The court also upheld Commerce's reconsideration of its calculation of the "uncreditworthy benchmark rate" and "unequityworthy discount rate," given that no party contested the marks.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of cases held that the Commerce Department permissibly found the full allotment of emissions credits under a Korean cap-and-trade program to be de jure specific. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the 2019 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, finding that the criteria for the program's eligibility, which are international trade intensity and high production costs, are "neutral" and don't favor one enterprise or industry over another.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's invoice date as the date of sale as opposed to the contract date in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment calculation, which accounted for inflation. The judge said the calculation wasn't "distortive" as Kaptan claimed, and, in fact, could have actually been distortive had it not accounted for inflation.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to deny exporters Hyundai Steel Co. and Husteel Co.'s constructed export price offsets in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said that Commerce reasonably said a "per-unit analysis" was needed to properly assess whether the home market and CEP sales were made at a more advanced stage of distribution and that neither respondent submitted such an analysis. The judge also said Hyundai received adequate notice of any insufficiencies in its submissions.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Jan. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation into pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce properly decided to use a direct valuation of an intermediate input of R-125 instead of using a valuation of the upstream raw materials. The judge also said the agency appropriately denied various byproduct offsets claimed by exporter Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. and permissibly calculated the exporter's surrogate freight rate by taking a simple average of short- and long-haul Russian freight data.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 denied the government's motion for default judgment in a customs penalty suit on importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the U.S. failed to provide facts to support its claim that the domestic value of the imported innersprings subject to the dispute amounted to $3,381,607.03. The judge said he couldn't reconcile the products' entered value of $945,922 with the government's alleged domestic value of the goods. The government sought a penalty, in the amount of $3,381,607.03, against Rayson and Cheng for allegedly falsely declaring the country of origin of innersprings from China.

The Commerce Department remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back Commerce's acceptance of respondent OCP's allocation of headquarters, support and debt costs in its cost of production for making phosphate rock after finding that the agency failed to address petitioner The Mosaic Co.'s proposed alternative methodology for allocating these costs. The judge also remanded Commerce's finding that a subsidy to OCP from a program for relief from tax finds and penalties was de facto specific, finding that the agency failed to show that the program isn't available to the entire economy. However, Stanceu rejected OCP's challenge to the calculation of a constructed profit rate for the exporter, since the company failed to raise the issue in its initial motion for judgment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held Jan. 7 that the Commerce Department can't significantly depart from accuracy when setting adverse facts available rates without showing a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance." Rejecting the department's single-sentence justification for a 154.33% AFA AD rate, it said Commerce was required to look to record evidence and evaluate "common factors" such as intent, recidivism or unreasonable carelessness when setting an unusually high rate.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 2 remanded the Commerce Department's finding in a covered merchandise referral excluding from the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made using fittings from China that underwent subsequent production in Vietnam. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back Commerce's consideration of various (k)(1) sources, including the petition, declarations from domestic industry executives and a prior circumvention in which Commerce came to a contrary conclusion.