The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations. Judge Timothy Reif said that no party objected to Commerce's remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

The Court of International Trade properly found that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 11 reply brief. The government said CIT properly defined the term "importations" according to both common meaning and judicial precedent as "foreign merchandise coming into the United States" (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for antidumping respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry's plywood input in the 2019-21 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China after three prior remands. After Commerce repeatedly stuck by its decision to adjust Brazilian plywood data to remove data from Spain, the agency changed course in its third remand results, deciding to use "historical data for Brazilian plywood imports and period of review import data from Malaysia." No party challenged the result.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 upheld the Commerce Department's decision not to collapse antidumping duty respondent Dalmine with its affiliated input supplier Silcotub in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce properly followed the relevant statute in finding that Silcotub, a Romania-based company, can't be collapsed with Dalmine, since Silcotub isn't a producer of subject merchandise. The judge said that Commerce didn't impermissibly rely on this rationale post hoc, since it's an issue of "statutory construction," which is exempted from the bar against post hoc rationalizations.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The International Trade Commission provided "impermissible post hoc rationalizations" for its determination of a lack of adverse price effects on glass wine bottles from China, the U.S. Glass Producers Coalition argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The coalition argued that the commission failed to "fully engage" with the petitioner's arguments regarding "contemporaneous business documentation and lost sales" and doubled down on its "illogical determinations as to price suppression and the effects of an inventory overhang in the market" (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00199).

Exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the Commerce Department's decisions made on remand to use Maersk data to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data. Filing a response to the agency's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China, Dingli said the Maersk price quotes are unreliable and that the agency strayed from its normal practice in picking the data for subheading 8431.20.90 (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00152).

The U.S. defended Sept. 9 the Commerce Department’s flipped position, on a second remand, regarding the application of antidumping and countervailing duties to exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use (T-type) tires fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The position represents a reversal of the agency's previous decision to exclude the tires from the scope of the order (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The U.S. renewed its motions to pause proceedings in two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a pair of cases on the same issue. Plaintiffs in both appeals, the State of California and members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, opposed the renewed motions (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).