The Court of International Trade recently upheld the Commerce Department's finding that exporter Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co. (Shantou Processing) was not the successor-in-interest to Red Garden Food Processing Co. (Red Garden), which subjected the exporter to antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from China.

Interpipe Ukraine and North American Interpipe dropped an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade concerning the legality of deducting from a company's U.S. price the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The case was stayed pending resolution of an action brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the same issue. In that case, the appellate court said the Commerce Department can legally make this deduction (see 2305160037) (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 21-00530).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to two of the court's orders issued prior, concluding similar suits also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2019-20 and 2020-21 reviews of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00132).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's complaint challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to institute a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey should be dismissed because it's moot after the ITC subsequently decided to conduct a sunset review, the U.S. and five U.S. steel companies led by Cleveland-Cliffs argued in a pair of briefs (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).

Commerce misconstrued its own regulations when it ordered CBP to liquidate entries of Goodluck India's cold drawn mechanical tubing from India at a 33.7% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate derived from a subsequent court decision, rather than the zero percent rate that was actually in effect at the time of entry, the company said in a May 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a second remand redetermination by the Commerce Department in its seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on off-road tires from China, finding Commerce permissibly applied its methodology when it denied separate rate status to Chinese exporters Guizhou Tyre Import and Export (GTC) and Aeolus Tyre and instead assigned the "China-wide" AD rate of 105.31%.

The Commerce Department did not offer any source to justify its use of 24 working days per month as part of its surrogate value calculation for labor in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade ruled. Remanding parts and sustaining parts of the seventh administrative review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, Judge Richard Eaton also sent back Commerce's surrogate financial ratio calculation for manufacturing overhead. Eaton did uphold the surrogate value determination for glue, however.

A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ningbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.

The Court of International Trade acted on its own initiative to order a "sua sponte" stay in a case on whether the Commerce Department lawfully found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) did not reimburse its affiliate BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) for antidumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products. Judge Richard Eaton said the case, which concerns the third administrative review of the AD order on these products from Australia, shares an identical issue with the U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. case, which deals with the second administrative review of the same AD order. "That is, the sole issue in the prior U.S. Steel Corp. case was the reimbursement of antidumping duties -- one of two issues in the present case," Eaton said (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00528).

Importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it erroneously issued to Jin Tiong in an antidumping duty review. According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said Commerce's rejection of Jin Tiong's answers as untimely was proper since the agency had withdrawn the questionnaire before the exporter submitted its response (see 2303200039) (Repwire v. United States, CIT # 22-00016).