The Commerce Department's discretion to decide whether to reopen the record on remand in antidumping duty proceedings "extends to placing surrogate value information on the record, with no restriction that such surrogate values can only be submitted to the record if strictly necessary," exporters Ningbo Master International Trade Co. and Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. argued. Submittting comments to the Court of International Trade, the exporters defended Commerce's decision to use Mexican International Labour Organization (ILO) data to value labor in the antidumping duty investigation on refillable stainless steel kegs from China (New American Keg v. United States, CIT # 20-00008).

Commerce's use of adverse inferences in selecting a countervailing duty rate in an administrative review on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China was correct and done using an established Commerce hierarchy, DOJ argued in its April 17 remand comments (Yama Ribbons and Bows v. U.S., CIT # 20-00059).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A CBP remand determination that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China is correct, although the agency continues to err in its underlying explanations, the company said in its April 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. CBP admitted under protest that Diamond Tools didn't make a "material and false statement" in its March remand results (see 2303200072) but the importer argued that CBP still misinterprets the Enforce and Protect Act statute and misunderstands its authority (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

The Court of International Trade dismissed a suit from SXP Schultz Xtruded Products seeking a refund of Section 232 duties on four different entries for which an exclusion was granted, saying the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Jennier Choe-Groves said SXP would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) if it filed a protest to contest CBP's liquidation of the entries. The judge noted the contradiction in SXP's arguments on the futility of filing a protest since the importer timely filed a protest for a fifth entry of the same goods, leading to a refund of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce legally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity was for less than adequate remuneration but did not confer a benefit. The agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence, the judge said.

The Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers refiled a motion to waive the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's redaction limits in a conflict-of-interest proceeding after the court rejected an initial bid to waive the requirements. The coalition asked the court for permission to redact 180 unique words, given that the reasons for redaction are rooted in existing judicial orders and the law, "are narrowly tailored toward" three groups of information grounded in the law and the redaction would not "frustrate the public policy regarding confidentiality in proceedings" at the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

The Commerce Department double counted energy costs for Chinese xanthan gum producer Fufeng in an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum from China, and "compounded" the error by applying the incorrect rate to separate rate applicant, Meihua, the company said in an April 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. U.S., CIT # 23-00069).

The Commerce Department incorrectly calculated subsidy rates and improperly applied adverse facts available despite the cooperation of respondent Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum, Alcha said it an April 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Alcha is contesting Commerce's methodology in the agency's administrative review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).

The Commerce Department illegally deducted Section 301 China tariff duties from exporter Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co.'s U.S. price in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, Fufeng argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. Fufeng added in its seven-count complaint that Commerce improperly decided to directly value energy factors of production in its normal value calculation based on a revision of Ajinomoto (Malaysia) Berhad's preliminary financial ratio calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).