The Commerce Department was wrong to deny antidumping duty review respondent Noksel's claimed duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that its inward processing certificate (IPC) wasn't closed, plaintiff Noksel Celik Borun Sanayi told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 brief. Noksel argued that it properly demonstrated that it qualifies for the full duty drawback adjustment since all imports and exports under the IPC have been completed and it is no longer permitted by the Turkish government to add import or export information (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00140).

Importers found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China argue for a greater due process rights in evasion investigations than Congress deemed fit to provide, the evasion alleger Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a Dec. 30 brief at the Court of International Trade supporting CBP's Enforce and Protect Act finding. Responding to a motion for judgment from the importers, led by American Pacific Plywood, the coalition said that the statute doesn't require the disclosure of confidential information during EAPA investigations (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03914).

Porsche Motorsport North America can't claim duty-free treatment of its auto parts and tools under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.85, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 30 opinion. The subheading is meant for goods temporarily exported for use in a trade and then returned to the U.S. Judge Stephen Vaden said that Porsche failed to clear the first criteria for use of the subheading since it sold some of its auto parts in Canada, despite re-importing the unsold goods.

The Commerce Department violated the law when it initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation into quartz surface products from India since it didn't have the requisite industry support, importer M S International told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Dec. 20 opening brief. Urging the appellate court to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that found that Commerce legally interpreted what constitutes a "producer" of QSPs, MSI argued that Commerce erred by excluding fabricators from the industry support calculation (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. The court previously remanded Commerce's decision to calculate respondent NEXTEEL Co.'s costs of non-prime products based on their resale value and then reallocate the difference between the resale value and actual costs of making non-prime goods to the costs of prime products in calculating constructed value. On remand, Commerce used NEXTEEL's actual costs for non-prime products.

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a countervailing duty case brought by PAO TMK, a member of the TMK group companies, in a Dec. 29 order. The case concerns the CVD investigation into seamless pipe from Russia, in which the Commerce Department found that TMK received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. Following a consent motion to stay, the trade court stayed the action until 75 days after the final ruling in the case and all subsequent remands (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases contesting the Commerce Department's final results in the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to a Dec. 29 order. The two cases were brought by Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Both cases challenge Commerce's use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has been ruled against by the trade court (see 2110200049). The order came following a joint status report that said that all parties agree that the two cases should be consolidated under the one brought by Wuxi Tianran. The order accompanying the joint status report partially lays out the briefing schedule, requiring motions for judgment to be filed by March 9, 2022 (Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00538).

The Court of International Trade reassigned five customs cases brought by Continental Automotive Systems from Judge Timothy Stanceu to Judge Jane Restani, in a Dec. 28 order signed by Judge Mark Barnett. Originally filed in 2017 and 2018, the cases concern the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Continental's probe element of nitric oxide sensors -- a mass-produced element of NOx sensors, designed for use in consumer passenger vehicles and trucks. Four of the five were placed under a test case. The Department of Justice filed its cross motion for summary judgment Dec. 22 (Continental Automotive Systems v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). The order didn't give a reason for the reassignment.

Sufficient evidence exists to back the Commerce Department's contentions on a countervailing duty review of wood mouldings and millwork products from China, both the Department of Justice and CVD petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers said in a pair of reply briefs. The defendant and defendant-intervenor pushed the court to accept Commerce's arguments that it properly countervailed respondent Yinfeng's purchases of acrylic polymer and alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with its benchmarks for the provision of plywood and sawn wood for less than adequate remuneration and land-use rights for LTAR (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00088).

The Commerce Department didn't follow the Court of International Trade's instructions when it continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the high China-wide rate, the consolidated plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export, argued in a Dec. 29 brief. The plaintiffs blasted Commerce's justification for the move -- that it had a limited record for calculating the separate rate respondents' actual rates -- since "this deficiency is of Commerce's own making" (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).