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).

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 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 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.