The Court of International Trade remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping investigation into utility scale wind towers from Canada in an Oct. 22 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back Commerce's decision to reject respondent Marmen's additional cost reconciliation information and use of the average-to-transaction methodology to discover masked dumping, while upholding the agency's weight-average of Marmen's plate costs, use of invoice dates as the date of sale, use of Marmen's reported sales of tower sections rather than complete towers, and decision not to apply facts otherwise available.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's decision not to grant a constructed export price offset in an antidumping duty investigation based on the claim that mandatory respondent Interpipe Ukraine didn't separately report the selling functions and the level at which it performed those functions from each home market channel of distribution runs contrary to the law, Interpipe argued in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Interpipe also pushed back against Commerce's decision to deduct Section 232 duties from its U.S. price when calculating its dumping margin (Interpipe Ukraine LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00530).

The Commerce Department's decision to use the Turkish lira value of home market sales rather than the U.S. dollar in an antidumping duty review deviated from the agency's standard practice and distorted an exporter's AD duty rate, the exporter, Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi, said in an Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00527).

Air fryers are not ovens, and should not be classified as such, air fryer importer Tristar Products argued in its Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off its classification battle at CIT, Tristar argued that the air fryers don't belong under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for ovens and should be spared the 25% Section 301 China tariffs levied on ovens (Tristar Products, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00563).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Solar cell exporter Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. challenged the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available relating to Tianran's benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in an Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Tianran was hit with a 19.28% countervailing duty rate in the 2019 administrative review on solar cells from China, based on its alleged use of the EBCP -- a contention that Tianran says is refuted by clear record evidence showing that Tianran's customers did not use the program (Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00538). CIT has repeatedly struck down Commerce's reliance on AFA in regards to the EBCP in CVD reviews.

The Commerce Department's decision to pick Turkey over Mexico as a surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation was not backed by sufficient evidence, importer List Industries argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the Mexican surrogate company's data was more detailed and that the company was actually profitable, unlike the Turkish company's, Commerce should have gone with the Mexican surrogate company, List said.

Importer Composite Technology International filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 challenging CBP's tariff classification of its wooden stile and rail imports. When it denied Composite's protests, CBP pointed to a prior CIT ruling holding that the wooden stiles and rails fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4421.90.97, but Composite argues for classification under subheading 4412.99.51 (Composite Technology International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #17-00175, #17-00129, #17-00178).

Turkish steel exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret kicked off litigation at the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 19 complaint over a countervailing duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey covering entries in 2018, arguing against the Commerce Department's finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic is a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00565).