The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by Hyundai Steel Co. over the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its reliance on facts available for Hyundai over a discrepancy in the reporting on two data fields once the agency gave the respondent a chance to clear up why the discrepancy existed. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., urged for the continued use of facts available. Judge Richard Eaton wasn't persuaded, though, finding that since Hyundai gave the requested information, Commerce made the right call in dropping the use of facts available.

The Commerce Department properly found that affiliated antidumping respondents Ghighi 1870 and Pasta Zara failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in reporting the U.S. payment dates for their pasta sales, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 4 opinion made public May 13. The court previously ruled that Commerce had not properly supported its use of adverse facts available over the reporting of the U.S. payment dates. On remand, Commerce further explained its position that errors in Ghighi and Zara's reporting of their U.S. payment dates was due to "inattention and carelessness." Judge Richard Eaton agreed, upholding the remand.

Net wraps used to bind agricultural products in round bales can't be classified as agricultural machinery, and are more akin to thread in a sewing machine or paper in a printer, DOJ said in a brief filed May 10 at the Court of International Trade. The motion for summary judgment asks CIT Judge Mark Barnett to rule against a motion for summary judgement filed by importer RKW Klerks (see 2203150049), and find the net wraps are knit fabrics rather than agricultural machine parts (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).

The Commerce Department's remand results finding that a South Korean authority did not provide electricity below cost in a countervailing duty investigation does not properly apply an "adequate remuneration" standard, plaintiff-appellant Nucor Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opening brief in its appeal, Nucor said that while Commerce does identify an adequate remuneration standard that could address the Federal Circuit's prior holding on the agency's sole reliance on a preferential rates analysis, the standard is not properly applied (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1525).

The Commerce Department improperly, and knowingly, double-counted Chinese exporter Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co.'s dumping margin in the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube, Ailong argued in a May 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce admitted as much, recognizing that Malaysian surrogate value data used for square tube, just one factor of production, included further processed square tube and the raw square tube used by Ailong, the exporter said (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00116).

The Commerce Department properly relied on a questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, the U.S. argued in a May 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge, didn't take issue with the verification methodology until litigation and the methodology is in line with Commerce's actions in prior crises, so the questionnaire should be sustained, Commerce argued (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00007).

The Court of International Trade in a May 12 opinion sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's specificity finding for the subsidization of electricity in China while sending back elements relating to the use of adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce's land value benchmark and ocean freight benchmark. Restani said that if Commerce drops the EBCP from its subsidy calculation but doesn't appeal, as it has done in the past, it must explain why the court shouldn't provide some other form of relief such as an injunction on the continued inclusion of the program with no attempt at verification of non-use.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 10 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett gave the litigants until May 17 to review the opinion to look over business confidential information (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).

CBP incorrectly denied U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement eligibility to jewelry imported by AAA Jewelers, the importer said in a complaint filed May 9 with the Court of International Trade. AAA Jewelers says its 21-karat and 22-karat gold jewelry pieces were manufactured in Oman and should qualify as Omani originating goods because the total value of materials produced plus the direct costs aren't less than 35% of the appraised value of the goods at the time of entry into the U.S. as required by General Note 31. AAA Jewelers said that the non-originating gold and copper are substantially transformed three separate times in Oman. The first transformation occurs when the 24-karat bars are alloyed with copper to reduce the gold content down to 21- and 22-karat gold, then again when the gold alloy is further processed and manufactured into gold wire, castings and stampings, and finally when the wire, castings and stampings are turned into the finished jewelry.

The Commerce Department illegally used one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit, mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and non-selected respondent AJU Besteel Co. argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138) (AJU Besteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00139).