The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 2 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In a case contested by respondents PhosAgro Cherepovets and EuroChem and petitioners LLC Industrial Group Phosphorite and The Mosaic Co., Judge Jane Restani found that Commerce erred in adjusting the natural gas benchmark price by adding the relevant 20% VAT and 5% import duty and misapplying its methodology in calculating EuroChem's total sales by relying on a number given by EuroChem that included sales from eight producers and input suppliers to export trading company EuroChem Trading Rus. The judge also sent back Commerce's cut-off date for measuring subsidies in the Russian economy.

The U.S. cannot ignore commercial reality when arguing against the fact that importer Bral Corporation contracted for defect-free merchandise, Bral argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Bral is seeking to establish a valid claim for an allowance -- a move the U.S. contests by arguing that the importer failed to produce any documents to detail the quantity, sizes or specifications of its imported plywood. Bral said that while this may be true, it's clear from other evidence that Bral developed the specifications for the imports over a significant period that led to the import of its plywood products (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00154).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order granted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's motion to voluntarily reconsider its decision to not reinstate an exclusion to the Section 301 duties on water coolers from China. Plaintiff DS Services of America, doing business as Primo Water North America, didn't oppose the motion. USTR said it wanted to reevaluate its decision given Prime Water's charges of the agency's alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Natural Choice's request to withdraw its opposition to the reinstatement of the exclusion (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT #22-00157).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 31 order dismissed a case challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the case, led by plaintiff Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa (CAADES), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that the appellants have the right to challenge the final determination even if it's subject to a suspension agreement, though it did toss many of the claims made against the determination (see 2204140067) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, CIT #19-00206).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).

The U.S.'s rationale for hitting antidumping respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. with adverse facts available -- that the company did not respond to the best of its ability -- is "conclusory, superficial, and unsupported by record evidence," Ajmal argued in an Aug. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department ignored the entire record when denying one of Ajmal's questionnaire submissions and its extension request, and then applying AFA, since COVID-19 restrictions created an "extraordinary circumstance," and justified the late filing, the brief said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587).

The Commerce Department erred when it continued to rely on adverse facts available despite a remand order invalidating the agency’s original reasoning for the AFA rate, Cabinets To Go (CTG), a U.S. retail chain, said in its Aug. 29 comments filed to the Court of International Trade. CTG intervened in the challenge to a final determination from Commerce’s antidumping duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (Dalian Meisen Woodworking v. U.S., CIT # 20-00109) because the calculated rates of its own suppliers were based on AFA rates for Meisen.

The International Trade Commission’s finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan had a significant impact on the domestic industry and contributed to its declining performance was reasonable and correct, the government said in an Aug. 29 motion at the Court of International Trade (Adisseo Espana v. U.S., CIT #21-00562). The motion came in response to an Aug. 12 motion by Spanish exporter Adisseo, which argued that the commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in the antidumping duty investigation (see 2208150017).

Antidumping duty respondent Nagase & Co's oversight in submitting information to the Commerce Department leading to a "patently erroneous assessment rate," does not justify Commerce shirking its responsibility to provide remedial fairness, Nagase argued in an Aug. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nagase admits to its error, the respondent argued that Commerce still has an obligation to correct the mistake now that the agency knows of its existence (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

The Florida Tomato Exchange, plaintiff in a case challenging an antidumping duty suspension agreement, moved to voluntarily drop its case, in an Aug. 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. The case was stayed pending resolution of another similar challenge led by Jem D. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trade court's dismissal of the Jem D case, which included a challenge to the termination of the 2013 suspension agreement over imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico (The Florida Tomato Exchange v. United States, CIT #13-00148).