The Court of International Trade remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that found that two-ply panels imported from China to Vietnam fell under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the scope language and the (k)(1) sources confirm the unambiguous meaning of the orders' scope, which excludes the two-ply panels. The court also upheld Commerce's rejection of Interglobal Forest's initial and rebuttal scope comments and ordered that Vietnam Finewood Co. be dismissed from the case since the company dissolved in 2019.

Correction: The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the final results of an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum for the Commerce Department to reconsider its use of adverse facts available when it assigned a dumping rate of 154.07% to Chinese producer Meihua Group, its separate rate calculation for two other respondents, and whether it could combine Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. into a single entity. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce failed to fulfill its statutory obligation by not swiftly informing Meihua of a deficiency in its submission before determining it failed to cooperate.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the final results of an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum for the Commerce Department to reconsider its use of adverse facts available when it assigned a dumping rate of 154.07% to Chinese producer Meihua Group, its separate rate calculation for two other respondents, and whether it could combine Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. into a single entity. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce failed to fulfill its statutory obligation by not swiftly informing Meihua of a deficiency in its submission before determining it failed to cooperate.

The Court of International Trade upheld in part and sent back in part the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on uncoated paper from Brazil. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled Commerce properly found that respondent Suzano's derivative losses were not investment losses or extraordinary. Suzano had said the losses were extraordinary and thus should be excluded from its costs of production.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce legally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity was for less than adequate remuneration but did not confer a benefit. The agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade dismissed a suit from SXP Schultz Xtruded Products seeking a refund of Section 232 duties on four different entries for which an exclusion was granted, saying the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Jennier Choe-Groves said SXP would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) if it filed a protest to contest CBP's liquidation of the entries. The judge noted the contradiction in SXP's arguments on the futility of filing a protest since the importer timely filed a protest for a fifth entry of the same goods, leading to a refund of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's decision that antidumping respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. was not entitled to a separate duty rate in the 2016-17 administrative review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China since the company did not rebut the presumption of de facto state control. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes ruled the decision was reasonable since a labor union, which is affiliated with the Chinese government, is the majority shareholder of Zhejiang "and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's ruling that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision via evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities. While the judges found that Commerce erred in not considering exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's arguments over the value added in its UAE production processes, the court said this was a harmless error.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China. Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products raised several challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection that Judge Mark Barnett found unconvincing. The court did not address whether the surrogate data Commerce used was the best available but only "whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information," Barnett said in his April 11 opinion. "Although Commerce’s explanation is not as thorough as it could be, the court can discern the agency’s path of reasoning," Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of its final results of its first administrative review of the antidumping order on glycine from Japan. Judge Alexander Vaden remanded for Commerce to reconsider its determination that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge found that Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law and that Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error and cannot use the court to force a correction from Commerce.