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.

Oman Fasteners must 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, the Court of International Trade said in an April 15 opinion. Oman Fasteners requested that the court establish and administer an escrow account to give security on its potential Section 232 duty liability 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 232 duties for affected entries.

The Commerce Department's decision not to grant exporter Ningbo Qixin a separate rate in an antidumping duty matter for not having any sales during the period of review "is logically inconsistent" since the agency is supposed to then rescind the antidumping review, the exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 12 opening brief. Ningbo Qixin also argued that the Court of International Trade improperly denied the appellant's motion to file new factual information out of time since "extenuating circumstances" warranted another shot to submit the information (Canadian Solar, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2162).

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Commerce Department's final determination in antidumping cases subject to suspension agreements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions issued April 14. Throughout the four cases, various U.S. and Mexican tomato producers challenged the final determination in the antidumping investigation into Mexican tomatoes, which was subject to an antidumping suspension agreement. The cases also challenged Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and the agency's decision to continue the antidumping investigation following this withdrawal.

The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises' bid to intervene in a countervailing duty review challenge, holding that since the company "sat on the sidelines" during the review, it didn't have the right to join the case. SSAB requested the review the 2019 CVD review of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from South Korea, but it didn't participate in it. "Commerce’s regulations, however, require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up," the opinion said. "Because SSAB did not actively participate in the review, the court denies its motion to intervene."

The Commerce Department said a South Korean sewerage fees program isn't countervailable, on remand from the Court of International Trade, dropping countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel's CVD rate to 0.50%. After learning more about the program, Commerce said Hyundai properly qualified for a reduction in its sewerage fees pursuant to the laws of South Korea and said this reduction wasn't received only by Hyundai (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).

The Commerce Department tapped a new third-country company's financial statement to use for surrogate values in an antidumping duty review after the Court of International Trade remanded its decision for a third time. Submitting its remand results to CIT on April 12, the agency halved mandatory respondent Oman Fasteners' dumping margin from 9.10% to 4.22% (Mid Continent Steel & Wire Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #15-00214).

The Court of International Trade, in an April 4 opinion made public April 12, sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. However, the judge remanded Commerce's decision to value silver paste using Malaysian import data, value mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co.'s ethyl vinyl acetate and backsheet, and use partial adverse facts available to value missing factor of production data, as well as the conduct of its separate rate calculation.