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.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 upheld the Commerce Department's finding in the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program is not de facto specific. The program exempts from a fee gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency reasonably used facts otherwise available to find a lack of specificity after the German government couldn't provide certain information on the program because it doesn't administer the program and would violate trade secret laws by collecting the information.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire & Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction that suspends liquidation of certain trailer wheel entries to not enjoin liquidation of wheel entries found by the Commerce Department to fall outside the scope of the AD/CVD orders on steel trailer wheels from China. The matter arose in Lionshead's suit against CBP's determination that various importers evaded the AD/CVD on Chinese trailer wheels. Judge Gary Katzmann said Lionshead failed to show "changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 found a factual dispute regarding the extent of CBP's role in the Section 232 exclusion request process for importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing, denying the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. G&H secured a Section 232 exclusion for goods entered under subheading 7304.29.6115 but then saw CBP liquidate its goods under subheading 7304.59.8020. Judge Timothy Reif said G&H couldn't prevail on its claim that CBP failed to consider it previously determined, on at least three separate occasions, that the company's goods are classified under subheading 7304.29.6115 as part of its role in the exclusion process.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's 33rd and 34th reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden upheld Commerce's decision on remand to use neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the same company in the 34th review. In the 33rd review, Commerce used neutral facts available after declaring that it can't conclude that the exporter has enough control over its suppliers to induce their cooperation. In the 34th review, the agency said Tainai was aware of its suppliers' prior non-cooperation, yet failed to undertake best efforts to induce their cooperation.

Court of International Trade Judge Thomas Aquilino upheld the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand that set at 26.05% the antidumping rate for exporter LG Chem’s superabsorbent polymers. On remand, the department switched back to a model match methodology it had used for the review’s preliminary redetermination, saying not enough evidence on the record supported the one used in its final determination (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 17 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's finding of de facto specificity regarding the Korean government's alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration, holding that the agency failed to give an explanation for its finding that the benefit received by a "group of entities and industries it identifies is disproportionate." However, the judge upheld Commerce's refusal to accept the 2021 cost information from the state electricity company, KEPCO, as being untimely filed.