The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's zero percent rate for non-individually examined companies in the fifth remand redetermination of the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood products from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves in an Oct. 10 opinion sustained Commerce's separate rate along with its decisions to exclude Dehua TB and Jiangyang Wood from, and to include Sanfortune Wood and Longyuan Wood within, the order. Commerce ultimately decided on the zero rate under protest after Choe-Groves disallowed the use of a 57.36% rate, calculated using only de minimus and AFA rates (see 2303170047).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion vacated part of its prior decision in an antidumping case remanding the Commerce Department's methodology for calculating an adverse facts available rate for mandatory respondent Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce can use the highest transaction-specific dumping margin for the other mandatory respondent in the review, Senmao, as the total AFA rate for Sino-Maple after initially rejecting the move. The opinion comes as part of the sixth AD review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Commerce did not submit a remand redetermination following Eaton's original decision but instead vied for reconsideration of the opinion.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 29 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce must consider its legal basis for finding that South Korea's emissions trading program is countervailable. While the agency said the South Korean government forewent revenue it was otherwise due by fully allocating emissions permits, Barnett noted a standard allocation of the permits may lead to extra government revenue but will not certainly lead to it. The judge added that Commerce failed to support its position that the program is sufficiently limited to an industry.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation of metal lockers from China. Previously, the court sustained Commerce's use of Turkey as the primary surrogate country but remanded the inclusion of rental income and treatment of interest income in calculating Turkish firm Ayes Celikhasir VE CT's profit as part of the surrogate value calculation. In its redetermination, the agency further explained how it treated shipping revenue, incentive income, interest income and rental income in setting the selling, general and administrative expense ratio. No party contested the remand results.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce incorrectly found that the South Korean government's provision of port-usage rights to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. was a countervailable benefit. Since the exporter built the port and was given the right to collect third-party fees in exchange, the port-usage rights are not a benefit but more akin to "consideration."

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce properly hit exporter SeAH Steel Corp. with adverse facts available due to its failure to submit information on its use of the Korean Export-Import Bank Performance Guarantee program prior to the investigation period. The judge said that while a "plain-text reading of Commerce's" instructions shows that the exporter was only required to submit information from the 2020 review period, it falls on the respondent "to clarify its understanding of Commerce's directive" instead of relying on its own interpretation.

The Commerce Department legally excluded importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 26 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce reasonably determined that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and a report from the International Trade Commission, established that the dividers did not belong in the scope of the orders.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 21 opinion granted parts and denied parts of importer Second Nature Designs' motion for judgment in a customs case on decorative items of plant parts. Judge Gary Katzmann said he agreed with Second Nature that "certain categories" of the imports should be classified as "dried items and curled items" under subheading 0604.90.30, free of duty. But for other categories, the court sided with the government's classification as "artificial flowers or fruit" under 0604.90.60, dutiable at 7%. Factual issues plague the remaining categories, the judge said, denying motion for summary judgment on those goods.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to find that importer SMA Surface's Twilight product does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China. Judge Gary Katzmann said SMA Surfaces waived its objections to this finding, which Commerce issued on remand, when the importer "did not brief any arguments specific to Commerce's analysis and explanation." Additionally, the judge said the remand results "adequately addressed" the importer's preliminary objections.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding in the countervailing duty investigations on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. Judge Stephen Vaden said the commission did not properly support its "central" conclusion that the imports depressed prices because their significant volumes "created oversupply conditions in a declining market and low prices." Noting this finding "undergirds" the remaining statutory considerations -- volume, price effects and impact -- Vaden remanded the undersupply analysis with special instructions to also reconsider the volume, price and impact analyses should the commission stick with its initial conclusion.