The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for antidumping respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input in the 2019-21 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China after three prior remands. After Commerce repeatedly stuck by its decision to adjust Brazilian plywood data to remove data from Spain, the agency changed course in its third remand results, deciding to use "historical data for Brazilian plywood imports and period of review import data from Malaysia." No party challenged the result.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 upheld the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse antidumping duty respondent Dalmine with its affiliated input supplier Silcotub in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly followed the relevant statute in finding that Silcotub, a Romania-based company, can't be collapsed with Dalmine, since Silcotub isn't a producer of subject merchandise. The judge said that Commerce didn't impermissibly rely on this rationale post hoc, since it's an issue of "statutory construction," which is exempted from the bar against post hoc rationalizations.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases, on an expedited basis, concerning the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Briefing will conclude by Oct. 30 and the consolidated cases will be heard the first week of November. The high court decided to consolidate two cases on the issue, one of which was fully before the court on the merits following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling that the reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to combat the flow of fentanyl went beyond the president's authority in IEEPA. The second case, which was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was exclusively on whether IEEPA categorically allows for tariffs.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling's case against the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on large-diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani held that Pipe & Piling didn't follow the procedures under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, codified in 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(g)(3)(B), by failing to notify other interested parties of its intent to seek judicial review. Restani said this requirement is jurisdictional based on the "text and structure" and "operation and context" of the statute.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 8 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against respondent Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark held that Commerce reasonably found that Corinth failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in the review by not remedying deficiencies in its submitted cost reconciliation. The court added that the agency wasn't required to provide the respondent with an opportunity to comment on Commerce's analysis that led to the conclusion that Corinth's reported costs didn't reconcile with its financial accounting system. The opportunity to comment only applies to information submitted by interested parties, not Commerce's internal findings.

In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 said the Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood molding and millwork products from China for exporters China Cornici and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts. Judge Jane Restani said the agency can't rescind AD/CVD reviews "solely due to a lack of suspended entries" under its regulations. While China Cornici and RaoPing initially mislabeled their entries, the record shows the companies took steps to pay the required duties. Commerce can't just rely on "mislabeled paperwork" in rescinding AD/CVD reviews for exporters and must consider other "important" information, such as prior disclosures and deposits of duties, the court said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 said the president doesn't have unlimited tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Seven of the court's 11 total justices presiding over the case affirmed the Court of International Trade's conclusion that President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl exceed the president's authority under IEEPA.

The Court of International Trade, in a decision made public Aug. 29, sustained the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce permissibly found that no benefit was conferred through India's Advance Authorization Scheme, which is akin to an advance drawback system. Commerce countervails the withheld import duties under this scheme unless the foreign government has an "effective, systemic process for verifying the use of such exempted inputs or has carried out an examination of actual inputs to verify their use." The judge said the record supports the agency's finding that the Indian government "conducted an examination of the actual inputs involved" in respondent Balkrishna Industries' production of subject tires to "confirm which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what quantities."

Assemblies of stationary hydrogen fuel cell generators imported by HyAxiom are classifiable in heading 8405 as producer gas or water generators, not in heading 8479 as machines with functions not specified elsewhere or heading 8503 for parts of electric generators, said Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu in an Aug. 26 opinion. Finding in favor of the classification put forward by HyAxiom, formerly known as Doosan Fuel Cell America, Stanceu held that the HyAxiom’s “PC50 supermodule,” even though not a functioning machine as imported, has the essential character of a gas-generating machine of heading 8405.