The Commerce Department fully addressed the Court of International Trade's questions about why the agency needs certain information from the Chinese government in order to verify that certain exporters' U.S. customers did not use the Export Buyer's Credit Program, a countervailing duty petitioner argued in May 19 comments supporting Commerce's remand. The petitioner, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union, AFL-CIO, said that the "only reasonable way" for Commerce to pursue verification of non-use of the EBCP is through this requested information, so the Chinese government not providing it stands as reasonable grounds for the use of adverse facts available (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00113).

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security continued to deny 15 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests from NLMK Pennsylvania in remand results at the Court of International Trade on May 18. BIS said that the U.S. industry has sufficient capacity to make the products that NLMK requested the exclusions for at a "satisfactory quality" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case, finding that exporter Pirelli Tyre wasn't controlled by the Chinese state for the first 10 months of the AD review. Ten months into the review, Chinese company Chem China bought Pirelli, but Commerce originally held that Pirelli was owned by the Chinese government for the entire review. On remand, the agency said Chem China didn't own Pirelli for the first 10 months, giving the exporter a 1.45% dumping rate for this period.

The Court of International Trade in a May 20 opinion denied the right to intervene in a countervailing duty case for the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the coalition does not have a right to intervene in the action since it has not shown it has a "direct, immediate, or legally protectable interest in this case" or that the U.S. will not adequately represent its interests. The judge also said that it will not let the coalition intervene since it fails to show that it shares a defense to plaintiff GreenFirst's claims since it doesn't sufficiently allege that it will be adversely affected by a decision in the case. GreenFirst filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's decision to not start a changed circumstances review of the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada.

The Court of International Trade in a May 20 opinion sided with the U.S. in finding sales of goods warehoused in Canada to U.S. customers were not "domestic sales" but actually sales "for exportation to the U.S." for valuation purposes. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that "undisputed evidence" shows that plaintiff Midwest-CBK's sales were exports to the U.S. at the time of sale. The judge also ruled that CBP's extensions of the liquidation deadlines were lawful and that the entries should not be deemed liquidated since CBP had a valid reason to extend the liquidation deadline. As a result of the opinion, the case now moves to phase two to tackle the remaining issues including the proper method for valuing the merchandise at issue.

The Commerce Department sufficiently backed its position that electricity subsidies in China were regionally specific, the Court of International Trade said in a May 19 opinion in a countervailing duty review challenge. Addressing the four other previously remanded elements of the review, Judge Jane Restani ultimately upheld Commerce's remand.

CBP improperly denied an importer's "mixed use" drawback claim, despite provisions in CBP's regulations allowing claims based on imports used for both pre- and post-Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) drawback, an importer told the Court of International Trade in a complaint filed May 16 (Parkdale America LLC v. United States, CIT #22-00019).

The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett remanded Commerce's use of adverse facts available over plaintiff Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems' (HEES's) reporting of certain parts as not being in the scope of the order. The judge also upheld the use of AFA relating to Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and the completeness of its U.S. sales database.

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the antidumping administrative review into passenger vehicle and light truck tires, finding that tire exporter Pirelli Tyre Co. rebutted the presumption of Chinese government control for the first 10 months of the review. Pirelli was bought by Chinese company Chem China 10 months into the review, but Commerce originally held that Pirelli was owned by the Chinese government for the entire review. On remand, the agency said that Chem China didn't own Pirelli for the first 10 months, giving the exporter a 1.45% dumping rate for this period.

The Court of International Trade dismissed two cases brought by steel importer Voestalpine USA and steel purchaser Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel seeking to retroactively apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion that was originally issued with a clerical error. Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs did not seek any relief that the court could grant since the entries eligible for the exclusion had already been liquidated, and the court does not have the power to order their reliquidation.