The Commerce Department properly modified the scope during its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from China in response to evidence of evasion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 opinion. Building materials company Bruskin International appealed various elements of the investigations, including the agency's decision to accept the petitioner's scope request. The court held that Commerce was not bound to the preliminary scope in the case and that the agency was justified in amending the defective scope to account for evasion. The Federal Circuit also ruled that Commerce properly rejected Bruskin's request for a hearing as untimely and that substantial evidence backs Commerce's factual findings related to its scope modification.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 21 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d statistical test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked" dumping, finding that the agency erred in departing from the statistical literature when it used a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation. The appellate court said that Commerce did not adequately justify its use of a simple average for the Cohen's d denominator and its deviation from normal practice when running the test. While the agency is not "duty-bound" to follow the literature, it must have a reasonable basis from departing with it given its reliance on the literature in using the test, the court said.

The Court of International Trade in an April 19 opinion sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results of the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly sustained Commerce's decision to cap respondent SeAH's freight revenue. The judge remanded, however, the agency's particular market situation determination and adjustment methodology, use of a PMS adjustment to SeAH's home market sales for the sales-below-cost test, denial of a constructed export price offset for SeAH, reallocation of respondent NEXTEEL's suspended loss and non-prime product costs and separate rate calculation.

The Commerce Department did not properly support its conclusion that it couldn't use antidumping respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 19 opinion. The case concerns a review of the AD order on frozen warm water shrimp from India in which Commerce rejected using ZASF's Vietnamese data for constructed value despite it being the largest market for the respondent's third country sales. The court said that Commerce's reliance on CBP's antidumping evasion determination on Vietnamese shrimp which did not involve ZASF cannot stand as a basis to reject the data. However, the court did uphold the agency's decision to not apply a knowledge test to its assessment of potential third country markets.

Oman Fasteners must make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability on all entries affected by its case challenging the validity of certain Section 232 duties, the Court of International Trade said in an April 15 opinion. Oman Fasteners requested that the court establish and administer an escrow account to give security on its potential Section 232 duty liability throughout the stay period pending an appeal of the court's decision. A three-judge panel said that the court was not convinced that setting up an escrow account is better than depositing estimated 232 duties for affected entries.

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Commerce Department's final determination in antidumping cases subject to suspension agreements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions issued April 14. Throughout the four cases, various U.S. and Mexican tomato producers challenged the final determination in the antidumping investigation into Mexican tomatoes, which was subject to an antidumping suspension agreement. The cases also challenged Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and the agency's decision to continue the antidumping investigation following this withdrawal.

The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises' bid to intervene in a countervailing duty review challenge, holding that since the company "sat on the sidelines" during the review, it didn't have the right to join the case. SSAB requested the review the 2019 CVD review of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from South Korea, but it didn't participate in it. "Commerce’s regulations, however, require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up," the opinion said. "Because SSAB did not actively participate in the review, the court denies its motion to intervene."

The Court of International Trade, in an April 4 opinion made public April 12, sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. However, the judge remanded Commerce's decision to value silver paste using Malaysian import data, valuation of mandatory respondent Risen's ethyl vinyl acetate and backsheet, use of partial adverse facts available to value missing factor of production data and calculation of the separate rate.

The Court of International Trade remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a March 24 opinion made public April 4. Judge Timothy Reif said that on remand Commerce must address evidence presented by CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition of respondent CS Wind Vietnam's alleged manipulation of the denominator used in the benefit calculation and evidence relating to the country of origin of CS Wind Vietnam's steel plate.

The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to the over 3,600 lawsuits challenging Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs covering over $200 billion in goods, finding that the U.S. Trade Representative had the authority to impose the tariffs. In the highly-anticipated opinion, the court ruled against the plaintiffs' argument that the USTR could not impose Section 301 tariffs because the government was responding to retaliatory tariffs from China.