The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 13 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of 31 of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce failed to consider whether objector U.S. Steel Corp. could supply the entire amount of slab represented across all 31 exclusions as opposed to just the slab covered by one exclusion request. However, Baker sustained Commerce's rejection of another 14 exclusion requests from California Steel, finding that the agency reasonably found U.S. Steel could timely provide slab to the importer in a sufficient quantity.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 16 remanded the Commerce Department’s classification of xanthan gum exporter Fufeng’s coal and its direct calculation of the exporter’s energy costs. Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed the exporter’s challenge to the Cohen’s d test and to the department’s decision to subtract Section 301 tariffs from the Fufeng’s value calculation (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to include importer Hardware Resources' edge-glued boards in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China. In his first decision since joining the court, Judge Joseph Laroski held that Commerce failed to consider whether Hardware Resources' products were, in fact, mouldings or millwork products under the orders' plain language.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded to the Court of International Trade for the second time a case on Meyer Corp.'s use of first sale. The ruling, issued Dec. 13, orders the CIT to once again consider whether CBP was wrong to reject the first-sale price submitted to the agency by Meyer, based on the price paid by distributors in Macau to a Thai manufacturer and by distributors in Hong Kong to a Chinese manufacturer. The manufacturers, distributors and importers share the same parent company -- Meyer International Holdings, Ltd.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded CBP's finding that importer Fedmet Resources Corp. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. Judge M. Miller Baker held that the Commerce Department, in a scope referral, erred in relying on its test finding goods to be covered by the orders if they are at least 5% made with alumina, since a court previously found the orders to not cover magnesia carbon bricks made with any added alumina. Baker said it's unclear if Commerce would have reached the same conclusion if it used the "benchmark of any added alumina."

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's calculation of industry support in deciding to open the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. After remanding the issue for Commerce to address potential double counting in its calculation, Judge Claire Kelly said the agency sufficiently addressed contrary evidence in finding there to be enough domestic support to launch the proceedings. The judge also said importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to administratively exhaust more specific claims regarding potential undercounting and commingling of the producers and processors in the industry support data used by Commerce.

The Commerce Department published its final rule updating various antidumping and countervailing duty procedures, most notably changing its nonmarket economy policy to allow for the use of a country-wide NME rate on entities in third countries that are "owned or controlled" by the nonmarket economy. The final rule revises multiple proposed changes the agency released in July, most of which codify the agency's existing practices surrounding the collection of cash deposits, calculation of an all-others' rate, respondent selection and attribution of subsides received by cross-owned input producers to countervailing duty respondents. The rule takes effect Jan. 15.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 9 remanded the Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratios calculation in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce's approach to overhead costs in Malaysian company Hanwha Q Cells Malaysia's financial statement "is so unclear that it is insufficient." Judge Leonard Stark disagreed with the majority, finding there to be sufficient evidence to support the agency's approach and charging the majority with providing relief that was not sought by exporter and plaintiff Risen Energy Co. However, the three judges agreed in sustaining Commerce's surrogate value picks for Risen's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 let the Commerce Department add an analysis memorandum from a previous antidumping proceeding to the administrative record of an anti-circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe. Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat as "pedantic," and said the memo should be part of the record because it was referenced by both Commerce and respondent SeAH Steel VINA Corp.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's benchmark picks for two subsidy programs in the 2016-17 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. Judge Timothy Reif said the agency adequately explained its selection of Trade Data Monitor data for use as the benchmark in assessing respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co.'s receipt of aluminum plate, sheet and strip, and the selection of a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis report using Thai data for the benchmark for Zhongji's land use rights program. On the land use rights program, Reif accepted Commerce's practice of using data contemporaneous with the receipt of the benefit and not with the review period.