The Commerce Department properly used total adverse facts available over antidumping respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy System's failure to report service-related revenue for its U.S. sales and failure of the completeness test at verification, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Jan. 11 opinion. Since the trade court previously upheld the use of AFA for each of these issues independently, Judge Mark Barnett said the court now finds substantial evidence supports the use of total AFA, as opposed to partial AFA, for both of these points.

The Commerce Department properly found that two out of three types of glass surface products made by SMA Surfaces, formerly known as Polarstone US, are included within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, the Court of International Trade found in a Dec. 12 opinion. However, Commerce did not support its finding that the remaining type fits under the orders, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled while remanding the case.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Dec. 22 opinion made public Jan. 13 upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce properly used adverse facts available for respondent Sino-Maple based on the company's failure to provide constructed export price information on a per-transaction basis for U.S. sales that third-country manufacturers made to its U.S. affiliate. The judge, however, sent back the AFA rate itself, finding the agency can't set the AFA rate for one respondent at the highest transaction-specific margin for the other respondent. Eaton also upheld Commerce's decisions to reject separate rate applications from Scholar Home and Baishan Huafeng.

Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).

Exporter Oman Fasteners has failed to show that paying cash deposits for antidumping duties will cause it immediate and irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 11 brief opposing the exporter's bid for a preliminary injunction against the payment of the cash deposits. The government said that Oman Fastener's bid to suspend collection of the cash deposits "asks for relief far beyond" the usual procedures "such that the United States would have almost no security to cover future duty liability." The exporter also has not shown that it will likely succeed on the merits of the case, the government said (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 11 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the antidumping review of large power transformers from South Korea. On remand, Commerce hit respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems with total adverse facts available for missing service-related revenues and the exporter's failure of the completeness test at verification. Judge Mark Barnett said substantial evidence backed the use of total AFA, as opposed to partial AFA as claimed by Hyundai.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard claims over whether Krakatu POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was an authority or directed by an authority for the purposes of a countervailing duty investigation. During oral arguments Jan. 11 before Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll, counsel for CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition, Kenertec Power System and the U.S. also argued over whether Indonesia's Rediscount Loan Program was an upstream subsidy and thus countervailable (Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03687).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department illegally based the dumping rate for separate rate respondents on a single mandatory respondent, plaintiffs Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and Carbon Activated Corp. argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established that Commerce is not allowed to do so, in its August 2022 decision in YC Rubber (North America) v. U.S., the plaintiffs said (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00335).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decisions not to account for compliance costs in its countervailing duty calculations for programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act and to find that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade on Jan. 10. Commerce said that it did not make any changes to the CVD rates in the investigation for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. United States, CIT # 21-00080).