The Court of International Trade issued two opinions on Aug. 3 sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results which held that Simpson Strong-Tie Company's split-drive anchors and crimp drive anchors do not fall within the scope of the antidumping order on certain steel nails from China. Following a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, OMG, Inc. v. United States, Commerce changed its findings for both products to exclude them from the order. The Federal Circuit held in OMG that masonry anchors are not nails and thus excluded from the order. Since Simpson's split-drive and crimp drive anchors are similar, they are also excluded, the court said.

The Court of International Trade stayed the liquidation of steel and aluminum "derivative" imports potentially subject to the Section 232 national security tariffs in an Aug. 2 decision. After the trade court struck down the expansion of the tariffs onto the derivative products for violating procedural time limits, it instructed CBP to liquidate entries affected by the decision without the 25% tariff. This liquidation will be stayed pending the appeal of the decision. The court cited a recent Federal Circuit ruling, Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, in its decision. The Federal Circuit in that decision ruled that tariff action by the president taken after the same procedural time limits was allowed since it was part of a planned course of action.

Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's use of surrogate data from Thailand in two antidumping administrative reviews into crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in two nearly identical July 28 rulings. The judge sought to bring the cases in line with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that Commerce's methodology was unreasonable. Commerce improperly continued to use Thai import data as a surrogate for data on a key input of the solar cells, Kelly said.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's negative antidumping and countervailing duty circumvention rulings on certain hardwood plywood products from China in a July 21 opinion, finding that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's goods were not later-developed merchandise. Commerce had reversed its initial finding of circumvention on remand after a previous CIT ruling in the case. The Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood challenged Commerce's findings, claiming that since a component of the glue was a trade secret, it could not be considered commercially available, making it later-developed. The court disagreed, ruling that whether the trade secret status of one part is irrelevant as to whether the plywood was actually “present in the market.”

The Court of International Trade denied a Vietnamese fish exporter's bid to obtain a separate antidumping rate from the country-wide rate in a July 6 opinion made public on July 21, finding the exporter failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control. In the 15th administrative review of the antidumping order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Commerce Department had denied I.D.I. International Development and Investment Corporation's application for a separate AD rate. The agency had said that the company didn't have autonomy from the government in making its management selection decisions, as evidenced by a government employee on its corporate board.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 20 ruling found that the Commerce Department's initial post-sale price adjustment based on a late delivery penalty in an antidumping case was properly supported. The appellate court reversed a Court of International Trade decision which found that Commerce should have adjusted the price by the entirety of the exporter's penalty payment and not just one-third of it, as Commerce originally did.

The Court of International Trade on July 19 dismissed Jaramillo Spices Corporation's challenge of a CBP redelivery notice, finding it lacked jurisdiction seeing as the lawsuit was untimely filed and concerned a decision made by the Food and Drug Administration. Jaramillo brought in a single entry of tamarind from Mexico which the FDA ruled was adulterated. The agency then ordered Jaramillo to export or destroy the shipment within 90 days which the importer failed to do. CBP then issued a notice of liquidated damages and demanded $50,000 as payment. The Southern Texas U.S. District Court had already ruled it doesn't have jurisdiction of a similar lawsuit Jaramillo filed there.

The Court of International Trade rejected the Commerce Department's rationale for applying a particular market situation adjustment to a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping case, in a July 19 opinion. Having repeatedly ruled that no such adjustment can be made, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the results in the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea for the third time. Judge Choe-Groves held that the statute instructs Commerce to only make PMS adjustments when calculating constructed value in an AD case and to only use sales in the “ordinary course of trade” when establishing normal value. Since PMS sales are not within the ordinary course of trade, they should be dropped from a normal value calculation rather than used to adjust the cost of production, she said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's final determination in an antidumping investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea in a July 15 opinion. The appellate court affirmed all but one of the Court of International Trade's findings, sending the case back to Commerce to reconsider the use of Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis when seeking to assign a dumping margin for goods having undergone "masked dumping."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties for improper jurisdiction, in a July 14 opinion. The Federal Circuit found that TR International Trading Co., which filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision, could have instead challenged a denied protest under 1581(a) or a scope ruling under 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable. TRI had challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties.