The Commerce Department should have considered alternatives to account for an antidumping duty respondent's distorted costs even when faced with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent barring particular market situation adjustments to the sales-below-cost test, Ellwood City Forge argued in comments at the Court of International Trade. One alternative would have been for Commerce to adjust for the PMS under the sales-below-cost test because the relevant exporter's records don't accurately reflect the exporter's costs, the brief said (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).

The Court of International Trade granted a group of Chinese exporters' motions to dismiss two cases contesting the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The case's complaints challenged the use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (see 2211080022). Daniel Cannistra, counsel for the plaintiffs, said it was decided that there was no more interest in the cases (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00291, and Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00292).

Pants designed to assist with incontinence should be classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9817.00.96 as "Articles specially designed or adapted for the use of and benefit of the blind and other physically or mentally handicapped persons," Viecura said in an April 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Viecura v. U.S., CIT # 21-00154).

The Commerce Department dropped the antidumping duty rate for three separate rate respondents in the administrative review of the 2016-17 AD duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cut the rates from 82.05% to 41.03% following separate litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Bosun Tools Co. v. U.S. (Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00006).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances determination from its investigation on raw honey from Vietnam, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association said in an April 10 response at the Court of International Trade. The commission asked the court to deny a December motion for judgment by Sweet Harvest Foods and three other plaintiffs challenging the ITC's finding (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., CIT # 22-00188).

The Court of International Trade abused its discretion by combining a motion for a preliminary injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment on the agency record (see 2302280040), AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge M. Miller Baker committed "multiple legal and factual errors" in his opinion, issuing the judgment on a record developed via "limited discovery" and displaying multiple errors on the merits, the petitioner claimed (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to find that importer SMA Surface's Twilight product does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 12. Commerce said that since SMA Surfaces submitted pictures of only a part of its Twilight slab, it was not able to verify that the product meets the criteria of the exclusion, which requires that there be a one centimeter glass piece within three inches of another one centimeter glass piece across the surface of the product (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT # 21-00399).

Commerce erred when it treated Section 232 duties as "U.S. import duties" instead of "special" tariffs in its antidumping duty calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, said Kaptan and Colakoglu, respondents in the review, in an April 10 complaint. Kaptan and Colakoglu also said Commerce incorrectly relied on invoice dates as the dates of U.S. sale rather than contract dates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 23-00059).

A court order granting an importer Section 232 exclusions for tin mill products would be "extraordinary relief," and the Court of International Trade should instead remand the denied exclusions to the Commerce Department for further consideration, DOJ said in an April 11 response brief at the Court of International Trade. While DOJ argued that Commerce correctly denied six Section 232 exclusion requests, it seeks to reconsider another two, admitting that some of Seneca's arguments warrant further consideration (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, in the face of challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection raised by Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products.