The Court of International Trade remanded on Feb. 8 the Commerce Department's final results of the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on forged steel fittings from China. In the review, Commerce hit the respondents with an adverse facts available rate over the Chinese government's failure to provide the agency with information over how its Export Buyer's Credit Program works. The court again said that this is an insufficient reason for using AFA since Commerce failed to explain why the information is necessary and why non-use of the program can't be verified by the information submitted by the respondents and their U.S. customers.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel products from South Korea. In a decision penned on Jan. 21 but made public Feb. 1, the trade court upheld Commerce's decision to find that the provision of electricity to South Korean steel companies wasn't a countervailable benefit. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce sufficiently addressed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's reservations about the agency's initial ruling of no countervailable benefit, including the role of the Korean Power Exchange's impact on the electricity market.

The Court of International Trade sent an antidumping case back to the Commerce Department with instructions to perform verification of the respondent's information or respond to the arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by the Bonney Forge Corporation. Commerce originally opted not to conduct verification in India due to COVID-19, issuing an additional questionnaire instead. The plaintiffs asked the agency to conduct a virtual verification, to which Commerce didn't reply. Judge Stephen Vaden ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, as Commerce must reply to all arguments made in good faith, or explain why it can't. Vaden also said that if Commerce finds that verification remains impossible, it should explain why senior DOJ and Cabinet officials can travel to India, but it is not safe for bureaucrats with "statutory responsibilities to do the same, even if only virtually."

The Court of International Trade partially granted the U.S.' partial remand request in a challenge of over 54 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion denials. In the Feb. 1 order, the court allowed the Commerce Department to take another look at 15 of the 54 exclusion denials, per its request, but only gave the agency 106 days to do so, as opposed to the 150-day timeline for which Commerce asked. While the plaintiff, NLMK Pennsylvania, consented to both Commerce's remand request and the agency's condition that a new decision maker be involved in the denials, the steel company sought further conditions such as the identities of the officials who would conduct the new reviews. The trade court denied NLMK's requests.

The Commerce Department can use adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review due to the Chinese government's failure provide information about how electricity processes and costs vary among its provinces, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 28 opinion. The opinion, which upheld a Court of International Trade ruling, concerns the fourth administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China, in which Commerce identified electricity price variations across different provinces, resulting in a finding of the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration.

The trade provisions of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the House's answer to the Senate U.S. Innovation and Opportunity Act, propose dramatic changes to antidumping and countervailing laws, a restriction on future Miscellaneous Tariff Bill lists, and would bar Chinese goods from entering under the de minimis statute. The House Rules Committee also released a section by section summary.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty investigation of truck and bus tires from China in a Jan. 24 opinion. The two groups of plaintiffs are represented by two Chinese exporters, Guizhou Tyre and Double Coin Holdings. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent the case back to Commerce so the agency can reconsider its decision not to grant separate rate status to these plaintiffs along with its position that Guizhou failed to rebut the presumption of control by the Chinese government.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 order denied California Steel Industries' and Welspun Tubular's bid for a stay in a case over the Commerce Department's final results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. CSI and Welspun wanted a stay while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls whether Commerce can make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. CIT said CAFC already ruled against the practice, so the trade court can't be certain that granting the stay would "serve any purpose other than" to just delay resolution of the case.

The Court of International Trade on Jan .13 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on a countervailing duty investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce held that the Korean Electricity Corp. didn't provide electricity for less than adequate remuneration and that prices on the Korean Power Exchange are not a countervailable benefit. The CVD petitioner, Nucor, questioned the use of a preferential-rate standard in the case, but the trade court held that Commerce also considered whether KEPCO recouped its costs in finding that electricity was not sold for LTAR.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's rates for the separate rate respondents in an antidumping review on diamond sawblades from China. In the review, Commerce calculated the rate by averaging the adverse facts available and zero percent rates of the two respondents. Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said this move was valid since Commerce was authorized by the statute to rely on AFA in finding the separate rate and that the rate was supported by evidence that the separate rates all trended upwards over the past administrative reviews.