None of the Court of International Trade's conclusions upholding the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping address the Commerce Department's "core error" of using a 0.8 threshold "when the statistical assumptions of normality, variance, and size have not been proven," thermal paper exporters led by Koehler Paper argued. In a reply brief at the trade court, Koehler said CIT's recent decisions in Stupp Corp. v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. "do nothing to mitigate the fundamental flaws" of using the d test (Koehler Paper, et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).

An enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly ruled as being within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories argued in an April 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Cambridge sued to contest a final scope ruling, issued March 16, which held that NLM-713-10, which consists of an enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope, fell within the scope of the orders on ammonium sulfate from China (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

A Mexican rebar exporter says its history of marginal dumping rates and cooperation with Commerce Department proceedings means that the 66.7% adverse facts available rate Commerce assigned it in an antidumping duty administrative review could not reasonably reflect any possible dumping, the exporter, Simec, argued in an April 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Grupo Simec, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00202).

The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results April 28 after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131). Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce’s selection of Malaysian data to value carbonized material was supported by substantial evidence. While each review is separate, Commerce is not prevented from acting in accord with prior reviews when the present review does not contain new information warranting a departure from prior practice, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade granted in part and remanded in part motions by the U.S. and petitioner Florida Tomato Exchange to dismiss challenges to several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, and subsequent suspension agreements. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the court has jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the AD investigation, which is under a suspension agreement, but does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to Commerce's decision to terminate a suspension agreement.

CBP did not adequately justify treating the same evidence differently when it reversed a recent finding on aluminum extrusions from China, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the Court of International Trade. In CBP's remand decision that reversed its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on the extrusions, the industry organization said CBP used most, if not all, the same evidence "without providing a rational explanation" (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until May 4 to review the confidential information in the opinion. The trade court previously remanded the case so that Commerce could address evidence in the alleged manipulation of the denominators used in the benefit calculation and to substantiate its conclusion that respondent CS Wind Vietnam didn't import its steel plate, thereby neglecting an import duty exemption subsidy. On remand, the agency said CS Wind Vietnam did not manipulate its margin (see 2210210040) (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 20-03692).

The Commerce Department legally found that financial statements submitted by antidumping duty petitioners from Indian mattress maker Emirates Sleep were publicly available, the petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, argued in comments backing Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court found that the agency did not adequately explain whether the statements were publicly available, Commerce properly explained on remand that they were via the Indian government's Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Zauba Corp., a web service that takes information on Indian businesses that is all a matter of public record, Brooklyn Bedding said (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).

The Commerce Department erred in its selection of surrogate values and data sets in an antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China, the Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment said in a reply brief filed April 25 at the Court of International Trade. The court should remand the final determination in the AD investigation to Commerce, the coalition argued (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. U.S., CIT # 22-00152).

The Enforce and Protect Act case involving Aspects Furniture International is not one of a lack of cooperation, "but instead one of 'too much' cooperation for CBP to handle, so much so that CBP chose to abuse its discretion" in ignoring the record completely, Aspects told the Court of International Trade. Submitting opposing comments on CBP's remand results, the bedroom furniture importer said CBP made "general, conclusory" explanations of its evasion decision based on the fact that it saw employees of Aspects' Chinese satellite office, Aspects Nantong, destroying information (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).