The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case on South Korean large power transformers, which allowed respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. to supplement its questionnaire response by providing additional information pertaining to service-related revenues and expenses. The remand period was opened following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that Hyundai should have been given the chance to supplement the record and that Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available was "unsupported by substantial evidence." No party contested the record, so Judge Mark Barnett upheld the remand results.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 14 opinion remanded elements and sustained elements of the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco.

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce "failed to consider the necessary factors" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit before it used partial adverse facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. due to its suppliers' noncompliance. The agency also failed to justify its decision to deduct surcharges Shanghai Tainai included as extra profit in addition to Section 301 duties when calculating U.S. price, Vaden said. However, the judge sustained Commerce's remaining positions, including its insistence that it deduct the Section 301 duties from U.S. price.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 12 opinion dismissed two counts from exporter HiSteel Co. in a case on the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed as nonjusticiable the counts that challenged the Commerce Department's use of the transactions disregarded rule for HiSteel's reported costs of slitting services and its adjustment of HiSteel's reported scrap offset. He said prevailing on the two claims would not lead to a change in the dumping margin. Katzmann stayed the case, which also contests the agency's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping, pending resolution of Stupp Corp. v. U.S. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 11 opinion ordered litigants in a customs case on GoPro camera cases to address whether any "material facts in dispute" are outstanding or whether the case is "ripe for summary judgment." Judge Timothy Reif said it appears there are lingering questions of fact regarding whether the camera housings feature lens coverings that obstruct the camera's use when enclosed within the housings, whether the camera is functional as a camera and if the camera's spring buttons on the housing are designed to resist pressure.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to reject Section 232 steel and aluminum duty exclusions for three companies, AM/NS Calvert, California Steel Industries and Valbruna Slater Stainless. Judge M. Miller Baker said that if on the remand, the government grants the exclusions, Commerce must tell CBP to "honor the exclusions" on entries that have not finally liquidated "when those requests were originally denied." The judge also rejected the U.S. motion to dismiss the case as to the finally liquidated entries, finding that the Administrative Procedure Act allows for reliquidation of finally liquidated entries since no other statute expressly forbids this relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 7 order upheld the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination in the antidumping duty investigation on fabricated structural steel from China. Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham ruled against the Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction in finding that the ITC did not err by declining to settle an alleged ambiguity in the scope of the domestic like product, deciding that the captive production exception is not applicable and declaring that imports of fabricated structural steel did not lead to significant price effects.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 21 opinion made public Sept. 4 again sent back the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel-cut-length plate from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency must revisit for the second time its decisions not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and to not treat POSCO Plantec, an affiliate of respondent POSCO, as a cross-owned input supplier for the provision of scrap and the converter vessel.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from India. In his Sept. 1 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to use acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of raw honey and that the department was not required to further verify the costs of the beekeepers and intermediary suppliers. Arguments from the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association that Commerce could have used alternate data sources or relied on adverse facts were "without merit," said Barnett. Rather than engaging in a "seemingly pointless verification exercise," Commerce lawfully reviewed data to ensure completeness. After filling gaps in the record with plaintiff-provided information, Commerce found the calculated acquisition costs were below those of respondents Allied Natural Products and Ambrosia Natural Products, making further verification unnecessary, he said.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 25 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency did not support its use of adverse facts available against exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co.'s alleged use of the Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge ruled that Commerce's use of AFA was "critically flawed" since it was based on "missing" information the agency never requested from the Chinese government, adding information from the Chinese state and Yama is sufficient to refute any finding that Yama could have benefited from the program. Stanceu also remanded Commerce's finding that Yama benefited from the provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda for less than adequate remuneration, per the agency's request, since Commerce forgot to add the document it based its finding on to the record.