The Court of International Trade on Jan. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. The court previously remanded Commerce's decision to calculate respondent NEXTEEL Co.'s costs of non-prime products based on their resale value and then reallocate the difference between the resale value and actual costs of making non-prime goods to the costs of prime products in calculating constructed value. On remand, Commerce used NEXTEEL's actual costs for non-prime products.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's flip to a final negative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Indonesia. Judge Jane Restani, in her second opinion of the day, agreed with Commerce's determination on remand that Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned company -- is neither an authority nor directed by an authority and therefore can't provide subsidies to the CVD respondents. The court also found that Commerce properly reached a negative upstream subsidy determination for the Rediscount Loan Program. Commerce had issued the order, now slated for revocation, in 2020.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation into large diameter welded pipe from Turkey. In the second remand results, Commerce dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to respondent Borusan Mannesmann's cost of production for the purposes of calculating constructed value. While no parties contested the elimination of the PMS adjustment, the AD petitioner took issue with Commerce's decision to not address the issue of the date of sale. Judge Jane Restani said that it is not necessary for the court to address the date-of-sale argument since it is moot since the result is a de minimis rate for Borusan.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Taiwan in a Dec. 23 opinion. The plaintiff, Power Steel Co. argued that Commerce can't deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. export price and that the agency was wrong to find that Power Steel paid Section 232 duties for all its U.S. sales. While Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's Section 232 deduction, the judge told the agency to reconsider whether record evidence shows that Power Steel did not pay Section 232 duties for some of its entries.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation of steel nails from Oman. The second remand results had been filed in response to a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that said Commerce didn't adequately explain its reliance on a financial statement from Hitech Fastener Manufacturer (Thailand) Co. -- a third-country company -- to calculate constructed-value profit since Commerce didn't adequately consider whether Hitech had received countervailable subsidies. CIT Judge Mark Barnett found Commerce's decision to stick with Hitech's financial statement wasn't in compliance with the Federal Circuit.

The Court of International Trade sustained on Dec. 20 the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico in which plaintiff Deacero served as a mandatory respondent. The court held, as it has done before, that Commerce can deduct Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from Daecero's U.S. price because they can be treated as U.S. import duties. Further, Judge Jane Restani said Commerce did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act by not notifying Daecero of its decision to deduct the Section 232 duties. Since AD procedures are fact-based, investigative activities, they are not beholden to notice-and-comment procedures, she said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from China, covering entries in 2017-2018. Judge Richard Eaton said that, while Commerce could get a more accurate "all-others rate" by tapping more than two mandatory respondents, its decision to only have two and only use one of their rates when establishing the all-others rate was not illegal. The judge also held that Commerce's valuation of the mandatory respondents' live freshwater crawfish factors of production under EU tariff subheading 0306.30.10, providing for live, fresh or chilled freshwater crawfish, is backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. Mandatory respondent Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. and its importer, Optima Steel International, brought the case to challenge Commerce's liquidation instructions, which included the wrong name for Tokyo Steel, resulting in an improper liquidation since the company had its own rate in the review. Commerce requested the remand to fix the error.

The Court of International Trade remanded on Dec. 13 the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon held that Commerce didn't group the different towers' control numbers together by any of the required 11 physical characteristics or use the characteristics as a "guidepost." Instead, the agency adjusted the towers' costs by weight-averaging the reported steel plate costs for all the reported CONNUMs. Gordon asked Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 10 said the Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping respondent's cost of production for the purposes of a sales-below-cost test. A three-judge panel at the appellate court said that the statute -- a section of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 -- didn't allow for such an adjustment, and that a PMS adjustment is only permitted for constructed value. The case concerned an AD review for welded line pipe form South Korea, originally brought by respondents Hyundai Steel Co. and SeAH Steel Corp., and was appealed by petitioner Welspun Tubular.