The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's third remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. The agency had again refused to investigate the provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce reasonably laid out the evidence that petitioner Nucor Corp. should have provided to "justify a new subsidy investigation of this subset of the broader electricity pricing scheme."

The Court of International Trade on March 18 held that CBP is not entitled to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers who cancel their tickets and who never receive a refund or fail to use a travel credit. Judge Gary Katzmann sided with Southwest Airlines on the issue, first finding that CBP isn't entitled to the fee under the statute, 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a), where no passenger arrives in the U.S. and where the agency didn't provide any customs services. The judge also held that CBP's Guidance Letters on the topic can't usurp the statute and that Southwest doesn't hold the fees in a "constructive trust" for CBP, since the agency has "no equitable interest in a fee where no passenger travels."

The Court of International Trade on March 11 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to include marble composite tile made by Elysium Tiles in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said "the scope language is not so clear that either party must prevail," finding both that Commerce didn't provide any (k)(1) sources to back its conclusion and that Elysium didn't sufficiently prove its composite tile is excluded from the orders as a ceramic tile.

The Court of International Trade affirmed March 10 the Commerce Department’s decision to use India as a surrogate over Indonesia in an antidumping review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. It said the department acted reasonably in finding that the Indian data was overall better. Regarding labor costs, it “had to choose between two regulatory preferences,” one for using only one surrogate and one for contemporaneous information, and it was Commerce’s “prerogative” to choose the latter, the court said.

The Court of International Trade on March 7 remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly excluded various mattress models made by respondent PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia under the "multifunctional furniture" and "mattress topper" exclusions. However, the judge said substantial evidence didn't support the exclusion of five models of the respondent's products under the mattress topper exclusion, since there was no indication they were used on top of mattresses. Choe-Groves also agreed to the government's request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the calculation of constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price ratios.

Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker affirmed March 7 the Commerce Department’s decision on remand not to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset as part of an antidumping duty investigation into granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India. The offset was originally intended to make up for the lack of data Commerce needed to adjust Gujarat’s home-market price for different levels of trade. Baker also affirmed Commerce’s choice to rely on Gujarat’s allocated movement expenses, agreeing it wasn’t feasible for the exporter to provide transaction-specific expenses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 6 that an importer’s steel branch outlets are covered by antidumping duties on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Dyk dissented. The case considered whether the Commerce Department had properly determined that the term “butt-weld” was ambiguous (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce complied with his previous remand order telling the agency to reopen the record and accept a submission from respondent Grupo Simec that it previously rejected for being untimely. On remand, Commerce dropped Grupo Simec's AD rate from 66.7% to zero percent and the rate for the non-individually examined companies from 33.35% to zero percent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 27 sustained CBP's finding that importers Glob Energy Corp., Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions and Crude Chem Technology evaded the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham rejected the importers' claim that CBP was required to refer the case to the Commerce Department to see if petitioner CP Kelco was still injured by oilfield xanthan gum imports, based on evidence purportedly showing the company no longer made oilfield xanthan gum. The judges also said CBP properly used adverse inferences against the claimed manufacturers of the merchandise. Lastly, the court said the Court of International Trade erred in finding it didn't have jurisdiction over entries erroneously liquidated by CBP, but the error was harmless given that the evasion finding was properly supported.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 25 sustained the Commerce Department's inclusion of importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce reasonably determined that the products were already found to be in-scope merchandise in a 2020 scope ruling involving products from Precision. In its second scope ruling request, Precision said its products were "moved within the scope in" the previous scope ruling. The court said it was "more than reasonable for Commerce to rely upon Precision's own statements."