The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation into forged steel fluid end blocks from India. Commerce said on remand that a questionnaire, issued in lieu of on-site verification for sole mandatory respondent Bharat Forge Limited, properly replaced on-site verification after initially saying it did not. Judge Stephen Vaden said the agency's decision does not comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, which said that on remand, an agency can either take new action or further explain its position. Vaden ruled that Commerce cannot "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by reversing itself and asserting that it verified Bharat's information.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said the respondents' quantitative analyses were deficient, but because the agency had not told the respondent that it required more information, it granted the offsets. Judge Timothy Reif sent back the case "in view of Commerce's failure in the instant case to comply with its" statutory obligations.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 3 opinion reversed the Court of International Trade's decision tossing a $5.7 million customs penalty suit from the U.S. against importer Katana Racing for lack of jurisdiction. The trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver, making the government's suit untimely. However, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit" and instead provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived. While the appellate court said CIT erred in tossing the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Katana is still free to claim that its statute of limitations waiver was void as part of an affirmative defense.

The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments brought in before Dec. 1, 2017. CBP made the decision under respectful protest on remand upon finding that DTT did not make false statements to the agency given the court's interpretation of Commerce's understanding of the scope.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a key July 27 opinion held that CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's rights to due process by refusing to allow it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding. The court ruled that the "relatively immutable" principle of due process, where the government must provide access to the evidence used as the basis for an action that seriously injures an individual, extends to administrative proceedings. Judge Timothy Dyk, the author of the opinion, said the court is aware of no such court holding showing that business confidential information is exempt from this rule, adding there is no "legitimate government interest" in refusing to provide access to this information in Enforce and Protect Act cases. The court also said there is no case supporting the government's "extraordinary theory" that it can avoid due process compliance by failing to provide for a protective order.

The Court of International Trade in a July 21 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judge Mark Barnett issued the opinion in a case consolidating three challenges -- one led by respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., one by respondent Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co. and one from petitioner Calgon Carbon Corp. Barnett sustained Commerce's surrogate values for six activated carbon inputs: carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam, ocean freight and bituminous coal. The judge also upheld the calculation of surrogate financial ratios and Commerce's acceptance of Datong Juqiang's reporting of its bituminous coal consumption.

The Court of International Trade in a July 24 opinion remanded the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Stephen Vaden sent the case back to the Commerce Department so the agency could address alleged errors in the antidumping rate calculation and because the agency did not express a clear rationale for its refusal to address petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co.'s claims on alternate legal grounds to make a particular market situation adjustment.

The government correctly classified counterweights for mini-excavators as "backhoe" parts under tariff subheading 8431.49.9044, meaning that they were not eligible for Section 301 tariff exclusion, ruled the Court of International Trade in a July 21 opinion. Judge Jane Restani sided with the government's dictionary definitions of "backhoe" and "excavator," rather than Norca's industry usage. Even if Norca’s argument about the commercial understanding is correct, "Norca cannot overcome legislative intent," said the court. The CIT cannot accept a commercial meaning that is at odds with the tariff schedule itself, Restani said in her ruling.

The Court of International Trade in a July 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to raise the dumping margins in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duties on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico for mandatory respondents Maquilacero and Prolamsa from 0% to 3.48% and 2.11%, respectively. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce properly corrected ministerial errors alleged by petitioner Nucor Corp. in Maquilacero's rate by "removing the inadvertent zeros within the calculation programming" and dropping data from the time before the review period. The judge also sustained the agency's decision to fix its currency conversion mistakes made in calculating Prolamsa's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion granted the government's motion to toss Target's case seeking to invalidate a CIT order instructing CBP reliquidate Target's metal-top iron tables at the 72.29% dumping rate instead of the original 9.47% rate. Judge Leo Gordon said that were Target to succeed, the result would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Court Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, the judge said.