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.

The Court of International Trade in an April 19 decision made public April 29 remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett for the third time sent back Commerce's decision not to start an investigation into the countervailability of the off-peak sale of electricity. The court said Commerce must address an allegation made by petitioner Nucor Cop. and explain why evidence the company submitted is "insufficient" for the agency to investigate the "off-peak pricing" under the existing "low standard" to open an investigation. Barnett also sustained Commerce's finding that exporter POSCO and input supplier Plantec aren't "cross-owned" due to Nucor's failure to raise the issue administratively.

The Court of International Trade on April 25 reversed the use of adverse facts available for Mexican rebar exporter Simec after the exporter couldn't provide certain downstream sales information by a supplemental questionnaire deadline. Judge Stephen Vaden said the Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying Simec’s timely extension request amid the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing out that three of Simec’s key accountants had died and a fourth had been intubated.

The Court of International Trade on April 24 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that importer Columbia Aluminum Products didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, but held that CBP wasn't required to immediately reverse the interim measures on the company upon making a negative remand finding. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the remand decision "is not in effect prior to the court's sustaining it through the entry of judgment."

The Court of International Trade on April 22 remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2015 expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's decision not to account for subsidies received by lumber suppliers to the CVD respondents and its decision to use exporter Fontaine's 2014 fiscal year tax returns to conduct benefit calculations for the 2015 review period. Barnett sustained Commerce's instructions to CBP to liquidate entries from companies that received de minimis rates without regard to CV duties, along with the agency's finding that Canadian and Quebecois logging tax credits were countervailable benefits.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the Commerce Department's results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back the agency's pick of Brazil as a surrogate country, along with the use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data, because it failed to cite evidence on the record to support the choice. The court also remanded Commerce's decision to adjust the Brazilian plywood dataset by removing Spanish import data.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said it was "unreasonable" for the ITC to view the conditions of competition over a 42-month review period without considering the effects of competition at the end of the period and on the day that it voted, particularly in light of the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed over the last four months of the review period. The judge also cited as reasons for the remand the commission's failure to consider contrary evidence of the effects of sanctions on Russian OCTG and the ITC's inclusion of non-subject South Korean imports in its analysis. She upheld the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Argentina and Mexico with goods from Russia and South Korea.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. established a right to a separate antidumping rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam. Judge M. Miller Baker said the agency failed to "show its work." The judge said that, even if Commerce properly granted East Sea a separate rate, it erred in assigning the company its AD rate, which the agency based on its cash deposit rate. Baker additionally sent back Commerce's use of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation in setting exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s AD rate.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to use the 2018-19 investigation period for its antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The investigation was resumed after being suspended multiple times since 1995, wrote Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, saying that the statute and congressional intent are clear that Commerce, when resuming a suspended investigation, must continue with the original investigation period. The judge made this decision after first finding that U.S. grower Red Sun Farms requested the continuation of the investigation when it made its request in 2019. Choe-Groves said that U.S. companies can make new requests for the continuation of suspended investigations after each suspension.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly instructed Commerce to invoke the specific statutory provision on which it relies on remand and explain either how the use of AFA promotes accuracy or how Garg Tube failed to respond to the best of its ability. The judge also rejected Garg Tube's challenge to Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping due to the company's failure to raise the issue administratively.