The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Customs Surety Coalition called foul on a CBP attempt to collect unpaid antidumping duties eight years after the relevant entries liquidated, saying the “devastating impact on the surety program is obvious,” in a May 20 amicus brief filed in the Court of International Trade. Stepping in to help defend Aegis Security Insurance Co., the coalition argued that if the court were to accept CBP's position, the statute of limitations on duty payments would be eliminated, allowing the agency to use the law to "absurd ends." CSC was joined by its four coalition members -- the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc., the Surety & Fidelity Association of American and the Customs Surety Association -- in its brief (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

The Court of International Trade erred in finding that the Commerce Department improperly applied a particular market situation when addressing purported distortions to costs of production in the 2015-16 antidumping administrative review on welded line pipe from South Korea, U.S. domestic pipe manufacturer Welspun Tubular LLC argued in its May 17 opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing that Commerce's interpretation of the PMS statute is entitled to deference and that the agency's finding of a PMS in South Korea is supported by substantial evidence, Welspun argued that CIT's reading of 2015's Trade Preferences Extension Act in a decision issued by the lower court on Jan. 4 would lead to "absurd results."

Turkish steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret said the Commerce Department correctly complied with the Court of International Trade's instructions to drop any adjustment to cost of production based on a particular market situation in the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping duty administrative review. In May 19 comments on Commerce's final remand results, Borusan also said that the agency properly adhered to court instructions by weighing the record evidence applicable to the reduction of Borusan's constructed export price by Section 232 duties paid.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's second remand results which, under court order, added the full amount of duty drawback adjustment to two companies' export prices and nixed two circumstances of sale adjustments in an antidumping case on Turkish steel. Judge Gary Katzmann in his May 20 opinion ruled against arguments from petitioner Nucor Corporation that Commerce find another "duty neutral" methodology for allocating the drawback adjustment. Commerce had originally applied the adjustment to all production, effectively reducing the adjustment to export prices for Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane and Habas Sinai in an antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Turkey.

Importer Strategic Import Supply wants a reconsideration of its case in the Court of International Trade, seeing that CBP granted a nearly identical protest to the one that was the subject of dismissal in an April 21 opinion. In a May 19 motion for reconsideration, Strategic Import Supply argued that CBP's recent decision to assess a lower countervailing duty rate on imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China is new evidence that the underlying protests in the CIT case were timely filed and that CBP acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

Strike pin anchor importer Midwest Fastener and the Department of Justice signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty scope challenge in the Court of International Trade. In a May 19 reply, DOJ acknowledged that neither party challenges the remand results in the case. The original complaint challenged a scope ruling from Commerce that determined Midwest's strike pin anchors were covered by the scope of an antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China.

A group of surety trade associations' attempt to file an amicus curiae brief in support of American Home Assurance Company in the Court of International Trade hit a snag when the Department of Justice opposed their filing. Though DOJ said it does not normally oppose such requests as an amicus brief, it nonetheless moved to block the brief, arguing it was untimely filed, in a May 19 memo. The surety groups consist of the Customs Surety Association, the Customs Surety Coalition, the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc. and the Surety & Fidelity Association of America.

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corporation along with consolidated plaintiff Husteel Co., Nexteel Co., AJU Besteel and Iljin Steel Corporation, argued against a government motion in the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case until the Federal Circuit rules on a similar question in a separate case. In a May 17 joint opposition brief, the plaintiffs said that the Department of Justice failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the Federal Circuit case, doesn't argue that it would be "irreparably injured" without a stay, and doesn't consider that there is a fair chance the plaintiffs would be injured by the stay.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China, backing the Commerce Department's addition to the scope in its final determinations of language covering Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) chrome-covered wheels. In a pair of opinions, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce had authority to determine the scope of its investigations, and found that the agency "provided adequate explanation" for its decision to include PVD chrome wheels. However, Katzmann did remand the cases due to Commerce's retroactive imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties, instructing the agency to assess the duties from the final scope memo that made the scope changes, and not the date of the preliminary determination.