The Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to use a weighted average to set the antidumping rate for the non-individually examined respondents in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The agency weight averaged the zero and adverse facts available rates given to the two mandatory respondents. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce "followed the court's instructions on remand" by using a weighted average, which represents the "expected method" for determining the separate rate. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the companies -- down from the original 42.57%.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 17 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to use a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency failed to grapple with various "shortcomings" in its decision, including Commerce's sole focus on Italian sales as a "reliable indicator of linkage for U.S. sales." Vaden also questioned why the agency didn't follow its precedent in analyzing products jointly sold in both the U.S. and home markets and found that Commerce didn't adequately explain how it analyzed the data to see if there was "proper linkage between the cost of manufacturing and the sales price."

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 rejected importer Katana Racing's renewed motion to dismiss the government's action against it to recover unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In her first opinion since being confirmed to the court, Judge Lisa Wang held that the U.S. didn't fail to properly identify the person liable for the violation, didn't need to exhaust administrative remedies and didn't unreasonably delay in bringing the claim. The judge added that Katana's claim of government misconduct is better characterized as part of summary judgment. Wang also denied both the government's and Katana's motions for summary judgment, finding there to be genuine issues of material fact that can't be sorted on the current motions, particularly due to the lack of undisputed facts in the case.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 held that a CBP HQ ruling on see-through pop-up tent "pods" wasn't subject to notice and comment requirements because a prior protest approval on the goods wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling or decision." Judge Timothy Reif said the protest approval wasn't the result of "considered deliberations" because CBP's Regulations and Rulings office wasn't involved, and that the decision didn't have "prospective effect" and wasn't "interpretive."

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 rejected the motions for judgment from both importer HyAxiom and the government on the proper classification of PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the court must first resolve whether the goods fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8405, which cover gas or water gas generators and is the heading preferred by HyAxiom. The judge said the court must determine whether the PC50's "primary function" is as a gas or water gas generator -- something neither party has sufficiently answered. As a result, both parties' summary judgment motions were denied.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 21 granted the government's motion to serve German paper exporter Koehler through its U.S. counsel in a suit looking to get Koehler to pay over $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court's Rule 4(e), which allows service on an individual in a foreign country "by other means not prohibited by international agreement," allows service through a foreign company's U.S.-located counsel. The judge added that international comity doesn't bar this type of service and that service through Koehler's U.S. counsel wouldn't strip the company of its due process rights.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 15 decision made public Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Judge Thomas Aquilino said Commerce failed to adequately respond to the petitioners' claim that some of exporter Megaa Moda's home market sales weren't made "for consumption" in India. However, the judge sustained Commerce's decision not to offset Megaa Moda's financial expenses by money earned from its "interest subvention program" and fixed deposits with Indian bank Federal Bank Limited.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on solar products from China. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's decision not to adjust exporter Trina Solar Co.'s U.S. price by the amount of six programs the agency countervailed in the most recent accompanying countervailing duty review. Kelly found that Commerce failed to explain its decision that the six programs weren't export contingent.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. Judge Jane Restani said jurisprudence from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test doesn't compel the revocation of the AD order for exporter Resolute FP Canada. The judge held that since neither court has rejected the standard use of the test, Commerce wasn't required to revert Resolute's dumping margin to zero in the underlying investigation.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's inclusion of the alleged subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in exporter Risen Energy Co.'s countervailing duty margin in the 2020 review of the order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Jane Restani said that while there is a gap in the record due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate, Risen failed to fill the gap because it submitted only nonuse certificates from all but one of its customers. However, the judge said it's unreasonable for Commerce to not prorate Risen's CVD rate for the EBCP based on all the sales the company was able to verify didn't benefit from the EBCP.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against respondent Unicatch Industrial Co. in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in submitting cost reconciliation information. The court also said the 78.17% petition rate was realistic as the AFA rate since two sales from Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, the other respondent, exceeded this rate. Lastly, the court said Commerce properly used the expected method in setting the average rate for non-reviewed respondents at 35.3%.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on narrow woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's decision on remand to drop the subsidy rate pertaining to exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge also said the agency properly countervailed the Chinese government's provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda, two ribbon inputs, for less than adequate remuneration. The court sustained Commerce's use of adverse facts available related to these two programs due to the Chinese government's failure to respond to the best of its ability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 13 again said President Donald Trump didn't violate the Trade Act of 1974 when he revoked a Section 201 tariff on bifacial solar panels. The court previously sustained the move in a November 2023 decision (see 2311130031). Partially granting a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel reconsideration, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark conducted a de novo review of the president's interpretation of the applicable statute allowing for the tariff action instead of reviewing whether the interpretation was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute. However, the panel said that the case isn't an "appropriate vehicle" for overruling the court's "clear misconstruction" standard of review for presidential decisions under the Trade Act.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping case and secure an injunction on its entries. Judge Jane Restani said the case presents a "common situation," whereby the court can't provide Habas the relief it seeks because its entries have liquidated, despite the company's intent to protest the liquidation.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction on a petition to ban imports of cocoa from Ivory Coast. Judge Claire Kelly said the group hasn't shown that CBP's failure to respond to the petition "harmed a core business or diminished any asset." Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the judge said resources spent trying to compel the agency to act were expenses for advocacy, which can't establish standing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 held that it's not unreasonable for the Commerce Department to set the all-others rate for non-individually examined respondents in an antidumping proceeding by using only total adverse facts available rates assigned to the mandatory respondents. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said there's no burden on Commerce to show that using only AFA is reasonable, finding instead that the burden is on the agency to "justify a departure from the expected method," not to "justify its use." Judge Timothy Dyk filed a partial dissent, finding that just because the use of AFA is "expected" doesn't make it "reasonable." As a result, Dyk said Commerce must show that the sole use of AFA in setting the all-others rate is reasonable.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate hot-rolled steel imports from Australia with other countries' goods when conducting a five-year sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected exporter BlueScope Steel's claim that the ITC had established a past practice of considering U.S. investments by foreign producers in cumulation analyses. The court held that the cumulation decision was backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade on July 30 sustained the Commerce Department's first review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce appropriately decided on remand to remove exporter Nagase's compensation for payment expenses from the company's general and administrative expense ratio. Vaden also ruled that Nagase failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding its request that Commerce reconsider the assessment rate.

In a separate decision, made public July 30, Judge Richard Eaton sent back Commerce's remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation of wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Eaton said that for each of exporter The Ancientree Co.'s U.S. customers whose non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program was verified, the agency must find a customer-specific rate that excludes a subsidy amount for the program.

The Court of International Trade on July 26 remanded the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates. After finding that exporters led by respondent Universal Tube and Plastic Industries didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding arguments on Commerce's consideration of alternative time periods in the Cohen's d test, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the agency's consideration of the time periods in the d test, which is used to detect "masked" dumping.

The Court of International Trade on July 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said on remand that Commerce properly slashed exporter Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited's AD margin to zero percent from a 154.07% adverse facts available rate. The judge also sustained the agency's collapsing analysis, which said Deosen Biochemical shouldn't be collapsed with Deosen Biochemcial (Ordos) since Deosen Biochemical made no shipments during the review period. As a result, Deosen Biochemical's review under the AD order was rescinded.

The Court of International Trade in a July 17 decision made public July 25 remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on Dutch mushrooms. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly declined to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Prochamp but didn't adequately support its decision to use Germany as the comparison market. Baker said it was unclear how many of Prochamp's German sales were for consumption in Germany.

The Court of International Trade in a July 15 decision made public July 26 denied customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Judge Claire Kelly said Seko's claims are "either moot or speculative" because it has been "conditionally reinstated" into the programs and has received a "detailed explanation" of its violation of the programs. The judge added that Seko's evidence refers to "speculative harm at best," and that harm to its reputation as a result of the suspensions isn't enough to warrant injunctive relief.

The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a suit on CBP's liquidation of tire entries from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The importer entered tires made by exporters Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co. and Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., subject to a 64.57% AD rate. In a separate case, the trade court enjoined the liquidation of certain tire entries made by the two exporters but not imports from Acquisition 362 because it wasn't a party to the case. The importer said CBP illicitly failed to enjoin the liquidation of its entries. Judge Mark Barnett said CBP didn't make a "protestable decision" in liquidating Acquisition 362's goods and that the agency didn't have the authority to extend to the importer's entries based on the court's order in the separate case.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif released a pair of opinions July 22 dismissing two of a hot-rolled steel flat product exporter's three cases. One, in which Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari sought a sunset review of an AD investigation, was made moot by a subsequent sunset review; the other was incorrectly brought under Section 1581(i) instead of under Section 1581(c), even if that would have required the exporter to file based on “speculation,” the judge said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-003549, -50).

The Court of International Trade on July 18 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to include Elysium Tiles' composite tile within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said the evidence doesn't show that Elysium's processing of its tile was so "minor" as to keep its goods within the scope of the orders. The judge said the "complexity of Elysium's processes exceeds the complexity of the processes described in the scope language." The court also held that Commerce provided an insufficient summary of an ex parte trip it took to U.S. tile maker Florida Tile's production facilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 15 said that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require the distribution of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the CDSOA only includes reference to interest that is "earned on" AD/CVD and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order, and that this interest is the only type to be deposited into the statute's "special accounts."

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden on July 11 upheld the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available for an aluminum exporter that could offer only a noncertified statement of nonuse from its sole customer, saying that Commerce isn't required to verify “incomplete or unverifiable” information (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).

The Court of International Trade on July 10 granted in part and denied in part Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion to unseal and unredact the confidential record in the company's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann kept most of the confidential information in the case from the public, save for an eight-page chunk of the confidential record, which describes the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's "standard operating procedures." Katzmann also kept most of the privileged information on the record away from Ninestar's counsel, with a few exceptions, on the grounds that, if revealed, the information would endanger a key informant.

The judge additionally refused to allow Ninestar's executives to access much of the confidential information in the case.

CBP was right to reverse its finding that an aluminum extrusions exporter from the Dominican Republic had been transshipping from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a public opinion released July 10. Judge Richard Eaton agreed that the agency had properly considered some overlooked evidence and recontextualized others -- conducting, as CBP had said, a “thorough and comprehensive” review of the previous determination “for the first time in this proceeding” (H&E Home v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade in a June 13 decision made public July 8 sustained CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Richard Eaton said CBP properly decided to forego the use of adverse facts available against Kingtom because the company fully responded to all the agency's requests for information. The judge also said CBP appropriately found that Kingtom's ties to China and data discrepancies don't amount to a positive evasion finding.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 overturned a foundational decision in administrative law, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which established the principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In a 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the majority said courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The court's decision is expected to affect international trade matters, and could lead the Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take a more active role in settling issues in trade remedies cases (see 2401180060).

The Court of International Trade in a June 18 opinion made public June 26 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to pick a second mandatory respondent in an AD review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision saying the agency couldn't use just one. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce reasonably said it could look at two respondents, despite the temporal limitations on going back and picking another. However, the court remanded Commerce's method of picking the respondent, remanding the agency's decision to leave exporter Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. off the list. Barnett also remanded Commerce's rejection of various companies' requests for separate rate status.

The Court of International Trade, in a June 13 decision made public June 24, sustained the Commerce Department's second review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Australia. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce found that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties, heavily basing this conclusion on an identical U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision issued in April. Eaton also said Commerce properly declined to make an additional deduction for the constructed export price profit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21 sustained the Commerce Department's final affirmative determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, in which respondent Marmen Energy received a 1.18% CVD rate. Judges Alan Lourie, Sharon Prost and Jimmie Reyna said that because errors were identified in Marmen's year-end exchange rate adjustment to the sales denominator, Commerce appropriately refused to use Marmen's adjustment. The court also held that Commerce adequately countervailed three different subsidy programs.

The Court of International Trade on June 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Exporter Erdemir claimed that the ITC's finding that injury would likely recur if the orders went away was invalid because later developments rendered the underlying injury determination invalid. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected this claim, saying the original injury finding "remains a final and binding agency action." The judge noted that the finality of unrevoked administrative decisions is "particularly important in the trade context" because of the need for "beacons of certainty."

The Court of International Trade in a June 10 decision made public June 18 dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' Section 1581(i) challenge to the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cells for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Greentech imported solar cells from Vietnam but was hit with AD/CVD on Chinese solar cells, protesting the decision. The protest was suspended once the importer brought the present case, which challenged the imposition of the AD/CVD under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett said remedy under Section 1581(a), as a challenge to a CBP decision, was not "manifestly inadequate" because the agency has a role in addressing the importer's claims. The court said "it appears that CBP reasonably intended to resolve Greentech’s claims during the protest proceeding," giving the importer a "bona fide opportunity to avoid liability."

The Court of International Trade on June 11 sustained the Commerce Department's use of a cost-based particular market situation in an AD case on Indonesian biodiesel regarding Indonesian crude palm oil, the main input in biodiesel, due to an Indonesian export levy on crude palm oil. Judge Richard Eaton previously remanded the issue for Commerce to explain how the PMS doesn't amount to a "double remedy" given the companion countervailing duties on the export levy. The judge sustained the agency's explanation that since neither normal value nor U.S. price was affected by the levy, no double remedy exists.

The Court of International Trade on June 10 sustained the antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding against importer Phoenix Metal for transshipping cast iron soil pipe from China through Cambodia. Judge Jane Restani said that CBP supported its finding with a wealth of evidence and that the agency's finding that Phoenix had some production capacity in Cambodia isn't enough to sink the evasion determination. Restani also rejected a host of due process claims made by Phoenix, though the court said a plaintiff could show that lasting harm was suffered by CBP's failure to provide notice of the establishment of interim measures. However, Phoenix failed to make this showing in the present case.

The Court of International Trade on June 5 remanded the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks for the main factors of production, labor and by- and co-products of Vietnamese catfish in the 16th review of the AD order on the frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Regarding the labor data, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce can't overlook issues with the Indian data it used simply due to its preference for using surrogate values from one country. However, the court sustained Commerce's choice of Indian financial statements over Indonesian financial statements.

The Court of International Trade on May 31 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker sent back Commerce's surrogate value data on ocean-shipping costs for respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., which was taken from Descartes, Freightos and Drewry, along with the SV data for minor fabricated steel components. However, Baker sustained Commerce's surrogate value picks related to two of Dingli's motor inputs. The court also said Commerce appropriately accepted certain factual information submissions from Dingli, despite the submissions violating the agency's regulations, since it was the only chance for Dingli to rebut the SV data on the record.

The Court of International Trade on May 30 remanded the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora and Apiario Diamante Producao e Comercial de Mel, collectively doing business as Supermel, in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that minor discrepancies between data submitted from small, unaffiliated beekeeper suppliers and the data submitted by Supermel isn't a valid reason to not use the exporter's acquisition costs as a proxy for the actual cost of production data. In addition, the court rejected Commerce's claim that Supermel's responses to five of the agency's questions were deficient, finding that the "principal information that Commerce found Supermel to have withheld was provided in full" by the company.

The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that duty drawback claims are deemed liquidated after one year, as long as the underlying import entries are liquidated and final, and that "finality" is defined as the end of the 180-day protest window for the underlying entry. As a result of this clarification, Judge Jane Restani granted one of importer Performance Additives' duty drawback claims on its polymer and plastic chemical entries. The other claim's entries weren't liquidated and final on its one-year anniversary, precluding deemed liquidation.

The Court of International Trade on May 28 denied the government's motion for partial reconsideration in its customs bond penalty case against surety company Aegis Security Insurance. After the court previously said the U.S. violated an implied contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment on a customs bond, the government claimed it couldn't reasonably anticipate this would be an issue in this case. Judge Stephen Vaden said the U.S. was clearly on notice this was an issue and, as a result, waived any claims regarding the reasonable time requirement.

The 323.12% antidumping rate received by quartz countertop exporter Antique Group in an administrative review after it missed a questionnaire deadline by five hours is an abuse of the Commerce Department’s discretion, Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett said in a May 28 opinion. The judge ordered Commerce to accept the exporter’s late filing; he also determined that the department’s application of adverse facts available to Antique Group would have been unreasonable even if the court had upheld its rejection of the exporter’s late filing. Addressing petitioner Cambria’s claim, Barnett also concluded that Commerce must also reconsider or further explain its departure from the expected method in calculating nonselected respondents' rate.

The Court of International Trade on May 28 told the Commerce Department to conduct sunset reviews of antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China, after the agency revoked the orders after not receiving a timely notice of intent to participate in the reviews. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's regulation, which calls for revocation of the order after no such notice is received, violates the applicable statute, which says Commerce shall conduct the review after receiving either a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response. Because U.S. producer Archroma timely filed a substantive response, Commerce should have started the reviews.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.

The Court of International Trade on May 16 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty investigation of mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce, under both its major input and transactions disregarded rules, properly picked Cambodia as the "market under consideration" and appropriately excluded imports from nonmarket economy and export-subsidizing countries from the datasets it used when calculating input cost of production and market price. Katzmann also upheld Commerce's averaging of financial statements from Indian mattress-maker Emriates Sleep Systems and Grand Twins International (Cambodia) "for calculating constructed value profit and selling expenses."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 15 reversed a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The AD order's scope language included standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. CAFC Judges Alan Lourie and Jimmie Reyna said that meeting an additional specification doesn't "strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes." The majority added that the (k)(1) materials support the inclusion of dual-stenciled pipes under the order's scope. Judge Raymond Chen dissented, finding that the plain scope language is ambiguous as to whether it includes dual-stenciled pipe, and saying that the (k)(1) factors support exclusion of the dual-stenciled pipe.

The Court of International Trade on May 9 said jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, for solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy's challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels. Judge Timothy Reif said that the case contests Commerce's liquidation instructions and failure to order the collection of duties and not the underlying final determination in the AD/CVD proceedings themselves. In addition, the court allowed nine solar cell exporters and importers to intervene in the case, given that they adequately demonstrated they would be adversely affected by the case. However, Reif said the companies failed to establish intervention as a matter of right and can intervene only due to CIT Rule 24(b), which allows for permissive intervention.

In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.

The Court of International Trade on May 8 remanded the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and its hedging practices due to the agency's failure to address the issues during the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to address one of Assan's arguments regarding its raw material costs administratively. He also said the agency's post hoc rationalizations regarding the company's hedging revenues don't square with its treatment of the revenues during the investigation. The judge sustained Commerce's treatment of both Assan's late fees as part of a duty drawback adjustment and of management fees paid by Assan's affiliated U.S. reseller. The court also granted Commerce's voluntary remand request regarding the denominator of the duty drawback adjustment.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 again remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allocation of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea was a de jure specific subsidy. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency illicitly considered factors used as part of a de facto specificity analysis to assess the program, noting that those factors can't be used to find if the program is specific as a matter of law. However, the judge sustained Commerce's findings that the full allotment amounted to a financial contribution to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and that the company benefited from the allotment.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's allocation method for its certification expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce had the authority to pick an allocation method that gave the exporter a chance to get a price adjustment for certification expenses while "avoiding the distortions reflected in the company's recalculation." The judge added that Commerce properly supported its finding that the allocation method used by Sahamitr was distortive.

The Court of International Trade in an April 19 decision made public April 29 remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett for the third time sent back Commerce's decision not to start an investigation into the countervailability of the off-peak sale of electricity. The court said Commerce must address an allegation made by petitioner Nucor Cop. and explain why evidence the company submitted is "insufficient" for the agency to investigate the "off-peak pricing" under the existing "low standard" to open an investigation. Barnett also sustained Commerce's finding that exporter POSCO and input supplier Plantec aren't "cross-owned" due to Nucor's failure to raise the issue administratively.

The Court of International Trade on April 25 reversed the use of adverse facts available for Mexican rebar exporter Simec after the exporter couldn't provide certain downstream sales information by a supplemental questionnaire deadline. Judge Stephen Vaden said the Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying Simec’s timely extension request amid the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing out that three of Simec’s key accountants had died and a fourth had been intubated.

The Court of International Trade on April 24 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that importer Columbia Aluminum Products didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, but held that CBP wasn't required to immediately reverse the interim measures on the company upon making a negative remand finding. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the remand decision "is not in effect prior to the court's sustaining it through the entry of judgment."

The Court of International Trade on April 22 remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2015 expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's decision not to account for subsidies received by lumber suppliers to the CVD respondents and its decision to use exporter Fontaine's 2014 fiscal year tax returns to conduct benefit calculations for the 2015 review period. Barnett sustained Commerce's instructions to CBP to liquidate entries from companies that received de minimis rates without regard to CV duties, along with the agency's finding that Canadian and Quebecois logging tax credits were countervailable benefits.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the Commerce Department's results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back the agency's pick of Brazil as a surrogate country, along with the use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data, because it failed to cite evidence on the record to support the choice. The court also remanded Commerce's decision to adjust the Brazilian plywood dataset by removing Spanish import data.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said it was "unreasonable" for the ITC to view the conditions of competition over a 42-month review period without considering the effects of competition at the end of the period and on the day that it voted, particularly in light of the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed over the last four months of the review period. The judge also cited as reasons for the remand the commission's failure to consider contrary evidence of the effects of sanctions on Russian OCTG and the ITC's inclusion of non-subject South Korean imports in its analysis. She upheld the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Argentina and Mexico with goods from Russia and South Korea.

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 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 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 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."

The Court of International Trade in a March 11 decision made public April 1 sent back the Commerce Department's use of a simple average of a zero percent and an adverse facts available antidumping rate to set the separate AD rate in the 2016-17 review of the order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton said that because Commerce had Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co.'s aggregate U.S. sales information, the lack of transaction-specific U.S. sales data for the exporter didn't support departing from the expected method, which requires a weighted average of the zero and AFA rates.

The Court of International Trade on April 1 lifted a temporary ban on nine fish types from New Zealand after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration made new comparability findings regarding the wildlife protections on New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries. The ban's lifting, which went unopposed by all parties, came after NOAA said that New Zealand established that its fisheries satisfy the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The suit was brought by conservation groups seeking to protect the Maui dolphin.

The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public March 21 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's decision to start the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the investigation. However, the judge sent back the agency's finding that the data relied on "accurately reflected industry support, including whether finishing operations were counted twice," in light of evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, led by Tenaris Bay City.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.

The Court of International Trade on March 18 said the U.S. government's eight-year delay in demanding surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. pay a customs bond for Chinese garlic entries was "unreasonable and a breach of contract." Judge Stephen Vaden said that while the six-year statute of limitations runs from the date CBP issues a bill and not the liquidation date, the eight-year delay in issuing the bill violated the "reasonable time requirement," which is an implied contractual term. Vaden also held that Aegis' "impairment of suretyship" defense failed since the surety could have made a claim with its insurer.

The Court of International Trade on March 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results excluding importer Crane Resistoflex's ductile iron lap joint flanges from the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu previously remanded the scope ruling on the grounds that it wasn't in a form that could be sustained by the court. Commerce said a Federal Register notice will be published stating that Crane's flanges are outside the order's scope.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7 sustained CBP's classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products used in hay baling machines under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 as "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10%, instead of the importer's subheading of 8433.90.50, as "parts" of harvesting machinery. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the net wraps are not "parts" as defined by the HTS since the wraps have "additional function outside the machine." The court added that a "consumable" item, "like bullets in a gun," isn't solely meant for use within the machine "simply because it is used exclusively by the machine."

The Court of International Trade on March 6 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results excluding Star Pipe Products' ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce appropriately considered (k)(1) sources given the uncertainty of whether Star Pipe's flanges plainly fit under the order and that substantial evidence backs the conclusion the flanges aren't subject to the order. The judge also said that the agency didn't base its fourth remand results on the "end use" limitation, as suggested by AD petitioner ASC Engineered Solutions.

The Court of International Trade on March 5 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a suit on the antidumping investigation on raw honey from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce properly used exporter Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for its suppliers' costs of production. Because the statute emphasizes finding whether the goods are sold at below fair value, the agency's departure from its normal practice of using the suppliers' data is "justified," Kelly said. The judge also upheld Commerce's comparison of Nexco's normal values based on third country sales prices and U.S. sales prices on a monthly, rather than quarterly, basis.

The Court of International Trade on March 1 denied importer Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees in an Enforce and Protect Act lawsuit, finding that "the government was justified in litigating its position" regarding the finding of evasion since the "underlying legal issues were ones of first impression." The issues of whether CBP is bound by the timeline created by the Commerce Department's start of a circumvention inquiry and whether the importer made a "material and false statement or act, or material omission" under EAPA were both novel questions.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 27 ruled that Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. wasn't required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force before challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "under the particular facts of this case." But Judge Gary Katzmann denied the exporter's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Entity List, finding that the company was unlikely to succeed on three of its four claims against its listing.

The judge said he would later decide on Ninestar's motion to unredact and unseal the record.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 15th review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Judge M. Miller Baker again sent back Commerce's failure to treat Indonesia as being at the same level of economic development as Vietnam during the surrogate country selection process. The judge also remanded Commerce's failure to consider evidence from petitioner Catfish Farmers of America regarding exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s reporting of its product information, though Baker then sustained Commerce's conclusion regarding the moisture content of NTSF's fish.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves rejected the agency's continued use of total adverse facts available against exporters Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) and Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., finding that the companies submitted evidence on the amount of duties it paid as requested by Commerce. Choe-Groves also said the data, submitted 56 days before the review's preliminary results, wasn't untimely. The court also faulted Commerce for continuing to not conduct a collapsing analysis of exporter Deosen Biochemical, ruling that the company wasn't given adequate notice that it could request a new collapsing analysis.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 sustained the Commerce Department’s application of the Transactions Disregarded Rule to calculate mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia’s normal value in an AD investigation. However, it remanded Commerce’s decision, in constructing Zinus Indonesia’s export price, to apply a quarterly financial ratio to the mattresses of Zinus’ U.S. affiliate that were still in transit at the end of the period of review; doing so was using facts otherwise available, the court said, and Commerce should have first asked Zinus Indonesia for the relevant missing information. CIT also granted Commerce a voluntary remand on its decision to exclude Zinus Korea’s selling expenses from Zinus Indonesia’s constructed value so that the department could consider more evidence that the Korean affiliate helped Zinus Indonesia sell its products (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's finding that R210-S engines made by Chongqing Rato Technology Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China. Exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. argued the R210-S engines have a newly designed horizontal shaft engine outside the orders' scope, while the U.S. said the horizontal shaft engine was equivalent to a modified vertical shaft engine, falling within the orders' scope. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce's claim that the orders don't include an exhaustive list of the parts needed for an engine to be covered cuts against "well-established legal precedent regarding scope rulings," and that the agency improperly relied on Wikipedia articles -- an "inherently unreliable source."

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 said that importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are properly classified under CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 9405.50.40 as lamps "or other lighting fittings," dutiable at 6%, instead in subheading 9022.29.80 as "apparatus based on the use of alpha, beta or gamma radiations," free of duty, as argued by Trijicon. Judge Mark Barnett said the tritium-powered products don't qualify as an "apparatus" under either of the definitions offered by Trijicon and the U.S. because they meet the "common definition of a device," given that they are made for a particular purpose: illumination.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 rejected the U.S. government's opposition to a host of lumber importers and exporters' requests to intervene in an antidumping review challenge, siding with nearly 30 years of litigation practice in which non-individually selected companies participate in judicial review of AD/CVD cases. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that a request for review in an AD/CVD proceeding is sufficient to justify intervention "as a matter of right" at the trade court, rejecting the government's claim that a party must submit factual information or written argument before Commerce to participate at CIT.

Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce's regulations defining a "party to the proceeding," which requires the submission of factual information or written argument, is at odds with the court's statutory rule on standing to join cases before the court. The judge said the regulation is an attempt to "regulate an area squarely within the Court's purview," adds requirements beyond those in the statute and conflicts with "Congress' expressed intent that access to the CIT should be expanded rather than limited."

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 opinion made public Feb. 13 remanded some aspects of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany. Judge Gary Katzmann sent back the coding of the static sensitivity product characteristic, classification of Koehler's accrued interest expenses as a cost of production and the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping, staying the case until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues a decision in Stupp Corp. v. U.S. He sustained Commerce's inclusion of exporter Koehler Paper's "Blue4est" paper product within the scope of the investigation, the agency's coding of the dynamic sensitivity product characteristic and application of price adjustments for some home market rebates.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to use a simple average of standard deviations in the denominator of Cohens d test for detecting "masked" dumping as part of the antidumping investigation of steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded this decision twice, finding that the academic literature relies on a weighted average. On remand, Commerce said the literature uses a simple average when the sample sizes are equal and that the standard deviation of a full population is "in fact the actual standard deviation." Because the agency used the full population of data in using the Cohen's d test, using a simple average is supported, Judge Claire Kelly said.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on retail bags from Malaysia. Judge Stephen Vaden upheld Commerce's use of adverse facts available to set inland freight expense data for U.S. sales the agency found to be unverifiable, as well as the decision not to correct a ministerial error on the grounds that notice of the error was untimely. The court said Commerce gave exporter Euro SME multiple chances to submit verifiable data after the agency found errors in the company's actual weight and inland freight data, making the use of AFA proper due to the resulting gaps in the record.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Chinese wood flooring exporter Fusong Jinlong Group was eligible for a separate rate despite its refusal due to the COVID-19 pandemic to be a mandatory respondent in a 2018-2019 AD review. However, the court allowed Commerce's application of AFA to the exporter, leaving the exporter's AD at the China-wide 85.13% while raising the review's non-individually reviewed respondents' rate from zero to 42.57%. The department made the change under protest after the court found it was treating similarly situated entities differently and hadn’t addressed Jinlong’s separate rate certification on the merits.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 7 upheld CBP's decision to drop its finding that importer Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group evaded the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP's finding, made after the Commerce Department conducted a covered merchandise referral on remand, was backed by substantial evidence. The covered merchandise referral found that the importers' carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were outside the order's scope.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 31 remanded for a third time the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation on refillable stainless steel kegs from China, rejecting the agency's continued use of a Mexican data set to calculate a surrogate labor costs value for respondent Ningbo Master International Trade. Judge M. Miller Baker said Brazilian wage data already provided by petitioner American Keg was "correct as a factual matter," making Commerce's reopening of the record on remand to seek additional Mexican data unjustified.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 rejected importer Spirit Aerosystems' claim that the "preceding indented text" to any 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading should be read as part of the article description for purposes of claiming a substituted unused merchandise drawback. Spirit's had argued its 10-digit subheading begin with the superior text "For use in civil aircraft" as opposed to "other," avoiding a prohibition on unused merchandise drawback for HTS subheadings that begin with the word "other." But Judge Claire Kelly said the "plain meaning" of the drawback statute refers to the words adjacent to the 10-digit number and not the superior indented text, and that Congress meant to exclude article descriptions with the word "other" to eliminate the need for CBP to find on a case-by-case basis whether goods are sufficiently similar to be eligible for drawback.

The Court of International Trade granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using certain supplemental discovery materials that were filed late -- a set of photographs and samples of crystals used in some of the watches -- in any further proceedings. The court barred Ildico from using the photographs, saying the exporter had not made a “sufficiently diligent” search for them earlier. Judge Jane Restani allowed continued use of the sample crystals for now but said she was “mystified” by the actions of both parties (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 denied a U.S. motion to dismiss a customs case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding a protest with CBP was not needed for importer Fraserview Remanufacturing's 80 entries that were deemed liquidated despite a Commerce Department order suspending liquidation. Judge Timothy Reif said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires the entries to not be suspended, the notices of deemed liquidation did not actually liquidate the entries. As a result, relief at the court was not available under Section 1581(a) but was available under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that oil piping from Brunei and the Philippines circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods from China. Judge M. Miller Baker relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. U.S. to reject claims from exporters HLDS (B) Steel and HLD Clark Steel Pipe against Commerce's comparison of their production of oil pipe in Brunei and the Philippines to the production of hot-rolled steel, an oil piping input, in China. The Federal Circuit already found that Commerce can make the comparison because the agency indicated what part of the total value of the goods subject to the inquiries is accounted for by the last step of processing and found that the level of investment is much greater for the production of hot-rolled steel than for oil piping, Baker noted.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 19 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia. Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's decision use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax calculation rather than its gross profit figure in its profit ratio calculation. The agency explained that the profit before tax is "narrower and helps to isolate costs for phosphate ore mining and beneficiation activities." Restani said that PhosAgro failed to show that "including expenses broader than those involved in the mining and beneficiation of phosphate ore would bolster Commerce's goal to render an accurate profit ratio."

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 19 granted a stipulation of facts and joint motion for judgment from importer SGS Sports and the U.S. in a customs spat on the classification of reimported swimsuits. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that, per the stipulation of facts, SGS Sports' entries qualify for duty-free treatment under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.20.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 rejected the Commerce Department's finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said CBP's final evasion determination and administrative review of the final decision contained "multiple errors, both of fact and of law." For instance, CBP pointed to no evidence showing that Columbia received aluminum door thresholds from China, transshipped the thresholds from China through Vietnam or falsely declared the country of origin as Vietnam instead of China. Stanceu added that CBP erroneously relied on a 2019 anti-circumvention proceeding, which applies only to aluminum extrusions exported from Vietnam made from aluminum previously extruded in China.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 5 opinion made public Jan. 16 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results reversing the use of adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners for filing submitted 16 minutes late. The result is a zero percent margin for the company as part of the sixth antidumping review on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's use of Oman Fasteners' quarterly costs and not annual costs in calculating the company's cost of production, as well as its decision not to deduct Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the U.S. price for all of Oman's entries.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 8 opinion rejected a motion from the U.S. seeking to retract the court's public opinion sustaining an affirmative injury finding from the International Trade Commission and to bracket information the government said was confidential. Touting the need for transparency in the court system, Judge Stephen Vaden said that the information the government sought to redact -- certain company names and numerical approximations -- is not confidential because the ITC failed to properly bracket it during litigation or the information is publicly available. The judge noted that neither "administrative agencies nor this Court can hide from scrutiny by censoring information," adding that only "truly confidential" information may be hidden from the public.