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 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.