The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 22 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Kumar Industries in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Kumar's "inadequate explanations' related to income-tax-related documentation for one of the limited partnership's partners did not allow Commerce to conduct its affiliation analysis pertaining to Kumar and two unnamed companies. The record lacked the needed information to "reconcile the record evidence" of the partner's ownership interest in the unnamed companies with conflicting information present in the "draft computation" Kumar submitted for the partner.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 27 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan's. Judge Gary Katzmann called Commerce's characterization of Nur's steel scrap as not necessarily primarily dedicated to Kaptan's production of rebar lawful and said the agency properly considered Nur's business activity as a factor in its primarily dedicated inquiry. The court held there is no past Commerce practice where the agency treats steel scrap as a primarily dedicated input of rebar.

The Commerce Department didn't violate statutory, regulatory or constitutional considerations in instructing CBP to automatically liquidate exporter Goodluck India's cold-drawn mechanical tubing shipments as part of the third antidumping review without providing the company with a later chance to file a request for review, the Court of International Trade ruled. The court originally excluded Goodluck's entries from the AD order, but that ruling was reversed on appeal. Commerce told CBP to liquidate Goodluck's entries subject to the AD order's third review at the 33.7% rate instead of the provisional zero percent rate in place during the second AD review's anniversary month.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted a group of Canadian exporters' motion to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling subjecting the companies to the order. Judge Mark Barnett said that while the second clause of Rule 60(b)(5) was not the proper basis for granting this request, the rule's third clause was, since the enforcement of the court's previous order subjecting the companies to CVD cash deposits is no longer equitable. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective going back to August 2021, when Barnett first subjected the companies to the order.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani again sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available against respondent Risen Energy for its supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, saying the agency imposed an "onerous level of certification" on Risen because the requirements "impede good faith efforts by respondents to comply." In addition, Restani sent back Commerce's land benchmark formula, which the agency came up with on remand, for violating the remand order's scope.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 17 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's final affirmative critical circumstances determination on raw honey from Vietnam, which led to the retroactive imposition of duties due to the timing and volume of imports. Judge Leo Gordon said "the four corners of the record do not support" the legal or evidentiary claims from importers, led by Sweet Harvest Foods. The judge said the plaintiffs failed to convince the court that the phrase "order to be issued" in the statutory mandate means ITC must find that imports are "likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping order to be issued." The importers also failed to convince the judge "how or why the statute would limit the time period" for the analysis to only the 90-day retroactive period instead of having it mirror the same period Commerce Department reviewed in its analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 opinion partially ended an antidumping case for one of two plaintiffs, German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, saying the court already had resolved its claims. Salzgitter challenged the use of adverse facts available on sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the AD investigation of cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. Judge Leo Gordon earlier sustained Commerce's use of AFA but now entered partial judgment against Salzgitter after finding the remaining issues do not affect the company, giving it a chance to appeal before final resolution of the case.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 14 opinion again remanded the Commerce Department's de jure specificity finding regarding Germany's KAV program as part of the countervailing duty investigation of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce, in its second remand results, did not explain how the German subsidy program limits usage to certain industries or enterprises and failed to consider the program's economic and horizontal properties and application. The program is available in Germany to certain customers based on energy usage. Kelly ruled that the fact that the program is limited does not mean that it is de jure specific.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 13 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden sent back the Commerce Department's affiliation analysis regarding mandatory respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and its customer BNK Steel Co., telling the agency to "apply the proper statutory test for affiliation, and explain" how the facts back its decision. The judge, however, sustained Commerce's affiliation analysis of Saha Thai and six of its other customers. The decision also granted Commerce's request to reconsider the scope of the review following an impending Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a separate case brought by Saha Thai.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 13 said then-President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 safeguard tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, in a decision that gives the president wide discretion in taking tariff action. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said the president did not clearly misconstrue the statute to find that he could make a trade-restricting modification to past Section 201 tariff action.