Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden on July 11 upheld the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available for an aluminum exporter that could offer only a noncertified statement of nonuse from its sole customer, saying that Commerce isn't required to verify “incomplete or unverifiable” information (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).

The Court of International Trade on July 10 granted in part and denied in part Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion to unseal and unredact the confidential record in the company's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann kept most of the confidential information in the case from the public, save for an eight-page chunk of the confidential record, which describes the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's "standard operating procedures." Katzmann also kept most of the privileged information on the record away from Ninestar's counsel, with a few exceptions, on the grounds that, if revealed, the information would endanger a key informant.

CBP was right to reverse its finding that an aluminum extrusions exporter from the Dominican Republic had been transshipping from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a public opinion released July 10. Judge Richard Eaton agreed that the agency had properly considered some overlooked evidence and recontextualized others -- conducting, as CBP had said, a “thorough and comprehensive” review of the previous determination “for the first time in this proceeding” (H&E Home v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade in a June 13 decision made public July 8 sustained CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Richard Eaton said CBP properly decided to forego the use of adverse facts available against Kingtom because the company fully responded to all the agency's requests for information. The judge also said CBP appropriately found that Kingtom's ties to China and data discrepancies don't amount to a positive evasion finding.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 overturned a foundational decision in administrative law, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which established the principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In a 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the majority said courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The court's decision is expected to affect international trade matters, and could lead the Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to take a more active role in settling issues in trade remedies cases (see 2401180060).

The Court of International Trade in a June 18 opinion made public June 26 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to pick a second mandatory respondent in an AD review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision saying the agency couldn't use just one. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce reasonably said it could look at two respondents, despite the temporal limitations on going back and picking another. However, the court remanded Commerce's method of picking the respondent, remanding the agency's decision to leave exporter Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. off the list. Barnett also remanded Commerce's rejection of various companies' requests for separate rate status.

The Court of International Trade, in a June 13 decision made public June 24, sustained the Commerce Department's second review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Australia. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce found that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties, heavily basing this conclusion on an identical U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision issued in April. Eaton also said Commerce properly declined to make an additional deduction for the constructed export price profit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21 sustained the Commerce Department's final affirmative determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, in which respondent Marmen Energy received a 1.18% CVD rate. Judges Alan Lourie, Sharon Prost and Jimmie Reyna said that because errors were identified in Marmen's year-end exchange rate adjustment to the sales denominator, Commerce appropriately refused to use Marmen's adjustment. The court also held that Commerce adequately countervailed three different subsidy programs.

The Court of International Trade on June 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Exporter Erdemir claimed that the ITC's finding that injury would likely recur if the orders went away was invalid because later developments rendered the underlying injury determination invalid. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected this claim, saying the original injury finding "remains a final and binding agency action." The judge noted that the finality of unrevoked administrative decisions is "particularly important in the trade context" because of the need for "beacons of certainty."

The Court of International Trade in a June 10 decision made public June 18 dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' Section 1581(i) challenge to the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cells for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Greentech imported solar cells from Vietnam but was hit with AD/CVD on Chinese solar cells, protesting the decision. The protest was suspended once the importer brought the present case, which challenged the imposition of the AD/CVD under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett said remedy under Section 1581(a), as a challenge to a CBP decision, was not "manifestly inadequate" because the agency has a role in addressing the importer's claims. The court said "it appears that CBP reasonably intended to resolve Greentech’s claims during the protest proceeding," giving the importer a "bona fide opportunity to avoid liability."