Usage rights at the Port of Incheon granted to Hyundai Steel by the Korean government are countervailable, but did not require a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis as part of a countervailing duty investigation, the Commerce Department said in its April 10 remand results at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00536).

The Court of International Trade substituted its own judgment for the Commerce Department's when it overruled the agency's rejection of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales as third country sales in an AD review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the sixth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not properly use adverse facts available for respondent Risen Energy Co.'s alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, finding the exporter provided enough gap-filling information from its customers to show that 95% of its sales did not benefit from the EBCP. Restani also sent back the agency's use of a 2010 CBRE market view report for Thailand in its land benchmark calculation and Commerce's use of Descartes data to value ocean freight.

Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of its final results of its first administrative review of the antidumping order on glycine from Japan. Judge Alexander Vaden remanded for Commerce to reconsider its determination that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge found that Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law and that Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error and cannot use the court to force a correction from Commerce.

The Court of International Trade approved fees for a three-day transcript rate and per-feed rates for real-time transcripts, the court announced. Per the transcript order form, a three-day transcript will cost $5.45 per page for the original and $1.05 per copy to each party and $0.75 to each additional copy to the same party. The realtime transcript will cost $3.95 per page for one feed, $2.10 per page for two to four feeds and $1.50 per page for five or more feeds.

A domestic steel company is challenging the Commerce Department's finding in a countervailing duty administrative review that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit. CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. also argued in its complaint at the Court of International Trade that Commerce was required verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).

The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).

DOJ argued that its counterclaims against an importer in a tariff classification case on dried botanicals should be sustained by the Court of International Trade, despite similar counterclaims being rejected. In an April 6 brief, DOJ said that the importer, Second Nature Designs, claimed "only that the Government has failed to state a claim" and that "such a claim is barred by the statutory finality of liquidation" (see 2303030015) rather than making a jurisdictional argument (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).