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.

The Court of International Trade on Tuesday denied a U.S. motion to dismiss a case brought by importer UniChem, finding the court has jurisdiction over all litigation resulting from denied protests of detentions of imports upon entry. UniChem claimed that CBP seized its entry of weight loss supplements and wrongfully held it for over a year -- long past the maximum 30-day seizure authorized by statute. The U.S. unsuccessfully sought to dismiss the claim, arguing the trade court lacks jurisdiction because the Drug Enforcement Agency, not CBP, made the detention decision. CIT Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP makes all detention decisions under U.S. trade law (UniChem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 allowed exporters NS Brands and Naturesweet Invernaderos S. de R.L. de C.V. to intervene in a case challenging the results of a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the companies showed good cause for waiting nearly five years in seeking to intervene in the case because the trade court "drastically changed the landscape of this litigation by ordering" the Commerce Department to investigate the 1995-96 tomato market "approximately 29 years" later. It would have been "nearly impossible in 2019 for NatureSweet" to anticipate the court's decision when the case was first filed, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 sustained the Commerce Department's third remand in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on beer kegs from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's decisions not to reopen the record to use a Mexican consumer price index inflator to adjust Mexican surrogate wage information and to use Brazilian surrogate wage data. Baker said Commerce reasonably explained that it wasn't necessary to reopen the record to inflate the Mexican data when existing data from Brazil "suited the agency's purposes."

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 15 sustained parts and remanded parts of the antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. Judge Claire Kelly rejected the Commerce Department's definition of "partners" in sending back the agency's finding that exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos and an unnamed supplier aren't affiliated. Conducting an analysis of the affiliation statute under Loper Bright, Kelly said Congress didn't expressly give Commerce the authority to define the term "partners." The judge then defined the term as "a for profit cooperative endeavor in which parties share in risk and reward." The judge remanded the issue for Commerce to apply this definition in its affiliation analysis between Louis Dreyfus Co. and the supplier.