The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. established a right to a separate antidumping rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam. Judge M. Miller Baker said the agency failed to "show its work." The judge said that, even if Commerce properly granted East Sea a separate rate, it erred in assigning the company its AD rate, which the agency based on its cash deposit rate. Baker additionally sent back Commerce's use of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation in setting exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s AD rate.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to use the 2018-19 investigation period for its antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The investigation was resumed after being suspended multiple times since 1995, wrote Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, saying that the statute and congressional intent are clear that Commerce, when resuming a suspended investigation, must continue with the original investigation period. The judge made this decision after first finding that U.S. grower Red Sun Farms requested the continuation of the investigation when it made its request in 2019. Choe-Groves said that U.S. companies can make new requests for the continuation of suspended investigations after each suspension.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly instructed Commerce to invoke the specific statutory provision on which it relies on remand and explain either how the use of AFA promotes accuracy or how Garg Tube failed to respond to the best of its ability. The judge also rejected Garg Tube's challenge to Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping due to the company's failure to raise the issue administratively.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 remanded the Commerce Department's duty drawback calculation methodology for exporter Assan Aluminyum that led to a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce incorrectly applied the drawback adjustment to all Assan's U.S. sales although only some contributed directly to the receipt of duty exemptions in Turkey during the investigation period. The judge also said Commerce failed to fully explain its decision by not addressing two claims from the AD petitioners, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group.

The Court of International Trade on April 10 said that neither the U.S. nor importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination properly classified entries of four types of notebooks with calendars, ultimately finding that the products fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10 as "diaries." Judge Jane Restani said that the Harmonized System should be interpreted to provide "conformity" between the French and English versions of the HS. As a result, the judge looked to the French and English definitions of the term "diary," which both describe as a notebook to write what one proposes or remembers what to do.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While Rimco filed suit under Section 1581(a) or, Section 1581(i) in the alternative, Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes said that jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) since the action's "true nature" was contesting a decision made by the Commerce Department.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. CBP reversed course on its remand decision after the Commerce Department's scope referral decision finding the companies' products subject to the orders was changed in a separate CIT case. Judge Mark Barnett said the case should be sustained after no parties contested the reversed evasion finding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's finding in an administrative review on hot-rolled steel flat products that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Leonard Stark said that while petitioner U.S. Steel can "point to several instances in the record where BlueScope" submitted responses that "could fairly be read to contradict its overall narrative" regarding how it charged its affiliated importer, it's ultimately not enough to "render the agency's decision unreasonable or not based on substantial evidence."

The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to countervail exporter KG Dongbu's three debt-to-equity swaps after initially declining to countervail them in the preceding three countervailing duty reviews on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce can't reverse its countervailability decisions without new information. The judge also remanded Commerce's decision to pass-through benefits from the three debt-to-equity restructurings to KG Dongbu after its ownership changed between the prior three and present reviews, along with the agency's calculation of the company's creditworthiness benchmark and unequityworthy discount rate.

The Court of International Trade on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's use of the invoice date as the date of sale instead of the contract date for both respondents, Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji, was properly supported. The judge said evidence from past reviews supports using the invoice date. She said terms of the contract permitted deviation in a material term and the quantities listed on the invoice were "materially different from those in the contract."