The 323.12% antidumping rate received by quartz countertop exporter Antique Group in an administrative review after it missed a questionnaire deadline by five hours is an abuse of the Commerce Department’s discretion, Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett said in a May 28 opinion. The judge ordered Commerce to accept the exporter’s late filing; he also determined that the department’s application of adverse facts available to Antique Group would have been unreasonable even if the court had upheld its rejection of the exporter’s late filing. Addressing petitioner Cambria’s claim, Barnett also concluded that Commerce must also reconsider or further explain its departure from the expected method in calculating nonselected respondents' rate.

The Court of International Trade on May 28 denied the government's motion for partial reconsideration in its customs bond penalty case against surety company Aegis Security Insurance. After the court previously said the U.S. violated an implied contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment on a customs bond, the government claimed it couldn't reasonably anticipate this would be an issue in this case. Judge Stephen Vaden said the U.S. was clearly on notice this was an issue and, as a result, waived any claims regarding the reasonable time requirement.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.

The Court of International Trade on May 16 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty investigation of mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce, under both its major input and transactions disregarded rules, properly picked Cambodia as the "market under consideration" and appropriately excluded imports from nonmarket economy and export-subsidizing countries from the datasets it used when calculating input cost of production and market price. Katzmann also upheld Commerce's averaging of financial statements from Indian mattress-maker Emriates Sleep Systems and Grand Twins International (Cambodia) "for calculating constructed value profit and selling expenses."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 15 reversed a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The AD order's scope language included standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. CAFC Judges Alan Lourie and Jimmie Reyna said that meeting an additional specification doesn't "strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes." The majority added that the (k)(1) materials support the inclusion of dual-stenciled pipes under the order's scope. Judge Raymond Chen dissented, finding that the plain scope language is ambiguous as to whether it includes dual-stenciled pipe, and saying that the (k)(1) factors support exclusion of the dual-stenciled pipe.

The Court of International Trade on May 9 said jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, for solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy's challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels. Judge Timothy Reif said that the case contests Commerce's liquidation instructions and failure to order the collection of duties and not the underlying final determination in the AD/CVD proceedings themselves. In addition, the court allowed nine solar cell exporters and importers to intervene in the case, given that they adequately demonstrated they would be adversely affected by the case. However, Reif said the companies failed to establish intervention as a matter of right and can intervene only due to CIT Rule 24(b), which allows for permissive intervention.

In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.

The Court of International Trade on May 8 remanded the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and its hedging practices due to the agency's failure to address the issues during the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to address one of Assan's arguments regarding its raw material costs administratively. He also said the agency's post hoc rationalizations regarding the company's hedging revenues don't square with its treatment of the revenues during the investigation. The judge sustained Commerce's treatment of both Assan's late fees as part of a duty drawback adjustment and of management fees paid by Assan's affiliated U.S. reseller. The court also granted Commerce's voluntary remand request regarding the denominator of the duty drawback adjustment.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 again remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allocation of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea was a de jure specific subsidy. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency illicitly considered factors used as part of a de facto specificity analysis to assess the program, noting that those factors can't be used to find if the program is specific as a matter of law. However, the judge sustained Commerce's findings that the full allotment amounted to a financial contribution to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and that the company benefited from the allotment.