The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions in 2020 following an order from the Court of International Trade to either conduct verification virtually or further explain its original decision. The agency in June 30 remand results said that the plaintiffs, led by Bonney Forge, raised the issue of conducting a virtual verification too late and that mandatory respondent Shakti Forge Industries' questionnaire responses provide a "reasonable alternative" to on-site or remote verification (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).

The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey's (Prolamsa) heavy walled rectangular carbon welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment which Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion made public July 1 sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce's decision to rely on constructed value based on particular market situation findings for home market sales made through Indonesia's Public Service Obligation program was valid, but that the reliance on CV for non-program sales needed to be further explained. The judge also held that the agency had to further explain its legal authority to make a CV adjustment to account for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) -- tradeable credits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Court of International Trade in a July 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion for entry of confession of judgment in a customs case on imported hardwood plywood from Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP). In all, Richmond filed four cases over 60 entries of hardwood plywood, which CBP classified as of Chinese-origin, assessing antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties, along with a merchandise processing fee. RIFP argued that the plywood is from Cambodia, filing a series of protests that CBP denied (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00178).

The Court of International Trade in a June 30 opinion upheld the Labor Department's decision to deny a group of former AT&T call center workers trade adjustment assistance, ruling that the department "(finally) gets it right," following two previous remand orders. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that Labor adequately explained the evidence it relied on, asserting that the department appropriately relied on certified information to declare that the company did not offshore the plaintiffs' call center jobs.

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion made public July 1 sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Commerce found that one or more particular market situations existed for exporter Wilmar Trading's home market sales outside of a government-subsidized grant program. In his remand, Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce must either back its PMS finding with evidence or use the price paid for Wilmar's non-program sales to determine normal value in the investigation. Eaton also sent back Commerce's decision to adjust constructed value.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit owes no deference to CBP's procedures in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation since those procedures violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights, the importer argued in a June 30 reply brief. Royal Brush also argued that CBP's decision to not give the importer access to business confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act proceeding is a problem of CBP's own creation, and that the U.S. offers insufficient defenses of the company's constitutional due process claims (Royal Brush Manufacturing Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

Exporter SeAH Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade since the court's ruling in the matter "would have no effect on its entries," the U.S. argued in a June 30 reply brief. SeAH only seeks to join the case, initially brought by Hyundai Steel Co., to potentially use the opinion as precedent in a later proceeding from a subsequent administrative review, DOJ said. This rationale does not clear the court's bar for establishing standing as an intervening party, the U.S. argued (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00138).

The Court of International Trade should not allow the Commerce Department to apply the highest dumping margin possible by picking only one mandatory respondent in a "weight-averaging situation," plaintiffs, led by Kisaan Die Tech Private, argued in a June 30 motion for judgment. The highest possible rate of the one respondent, determined using adverse facts available, is not reflective of the cooperating respondents' dumping margin, and thus not backed by evidence or law, the plaintiffs said (Kisaan Die Tech Private Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00512).

The Commerce Department erred by finding that Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was not a government authority, leading Commerce to find its provision of cut-to-length steel plate below cost was not countervailable, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition said. Arguing against the U.S. and exporter Kenertec Power System, the coalition said in a June 29 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that by making its decision, the agency "elevated form over substance, frustrated the intent of the CVD law, and allowed Indonesia's wind tower producer to receive subsidies and escape duties" (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03687).