The Commerce Department continued to rely on adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case on remand at the Court of International Trade, holding that respondent Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi failed to act to the best of its ability when providing certain information about a Turkish government subsidiary. While it dropped AFA over Celik Halat's Section III of the initial CVD questionnaire, as instructed by the court, the agency still used AFA over Celik Halat's failure to respond to the Standard Questions Appendix of the Tax Program Appendix for the subsidy (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).

The Court of International Trade in an April 19 opinion sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results of the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly sustained Commerce's decision to cap respondent SeAH's freight revenue. The judge remanded, however, the agency's particular market situation determination and adjustment methodology, use of a PMS adjustment to SeAH's home market sales for the sales-below-cost test, denial of a constructed export price offset for SeAH, reallocation of respondent NEXTEEL's suspended loss and non-prime product costs and separate rate calculation.

The Commerce Department reasonably found that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s tires did not qualify for a scope exclusion for light truck spare tires despite the petitioner agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires, DOJ said in an April 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exclusion requires that the tires be designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for light trucks, and enough evidence sits on the record showing that this wasn't the case for Cheng Shin, the brief said (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00398).

The Commerce Department slashed antidumping duties for exporter BlueScope Steel from 99.20% to 4.95% after dropping its reliance on adverse facts available, on remand at the Court of International Trade in an April 14 submission. After issuing a supplemental questionnaire to BlueScope during remand proceedings and accepting the exporter's quantity and value data, Commerce said that AFA was no longer warranted (BlueScope Steel Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).

The Court of International Trade ordered in an April 15 opinion that exporter Oman Fasteners shall make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability on all entries affected by its case challenging the validity of certain Section 232 duties. Oman Fasteners requested that the court should establish and administer an escrow account throughout the stay period pending an appeal of the court's decision. A three-judge panel said that the court was not convinced that setting up an escrow account is better than depositing estimated Section 232 duties for affected entries.

The U.S. was granted a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade. In its motion requesting the remand, CBP told the court that a remand is needed in light of arguments by the plaintiffs that the evasion finding is based on insufficient evidence. In particular, DOJ said that CBP needed to address logistical gaps in the feasibility of an alleged transshipment scheme and criticism of perceived inconsistencies in the materials submitted by the importers and the company accused of transshipping. Each of the three plaintiffs' counsel consented to the move (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

An individual who is challenging her failed customs broker test without a lawyer (see 2202170065) responded to DOJ's motion for a more definitive statement, in an April 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. The unusual filing responds to the U.S.'s request for a more clear legal claim by arguing that Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at CBP, made mistakes when responding to the plaintiff, Shuzhen Zhong, in her appeal of her customs broker test results. The case requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. In the filing, Zhong requested to be supplied with a pro bono lawyer (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

Allegheny Technologies Inc. was granted refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on various entries following court-annexed mediation at the Court of International Trade, according to an April 13 stipulated judgment from the court. The case is the second of its kind to result in refunds for Section 232 duties paid following an initial challenge to the Commerce Department's denial of duty exclusion requests (Allegheny Technologies v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises the right to intervene in a challenge to a countervailing duty review. Although the company requested the Commerce Department open the review, it "sat on the sidelines" during the proceeding, Judge M. Miller Baker said in the opinion. "Commerce's regulations ... require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up."

Companies have the right to judicially challenge an antidumping duty investigation's final determination even if it is subject to a suspension agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions on April 14. The court issued the opinions together as they all pertain to the same antidumping investigation on Mexican tomatoes. While the appellate court sent the cases back establishing jurisdiction for the claims against the AD investigation's final determination, the court did dismiss some claims against the termination of a prior suspension agreement and the new suspension agreement.