The Commerce Department verified that countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. and its U.S. customers did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 8. However, Commerce said that it still believes that the use of adverse facts available over the program is warranted since the Chinese government did not provide the requested information supposedly needed for a full analysis of whether the respondent and its U.S. customers benefitted from the EBCP (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00166).

The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's lawsuit contesting CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels from China. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since the liquidation of the entries wasn't a protestable decision. The court instead would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) rather than Section 1581(a) and (i) as claimed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could have raised its claims -- including one that says the duties violate the Eighth Amendment -- by requesting a review of the AD/CVD orders, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. can't withdraw from Hongteo's customs case. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kyasov of Rock Trade Law -- must first identify substitute counsel. Pilon and Kyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo didn't pay its outstanding legal fees.

The U.S.'s rationale for its motion to stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade is "remarkable," and essentially concedes that CBP cannot back its evasion finding, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) said in a July 6 brief opposing the stay. The stay motion wants to halt proceedings at CIT so a covered merchandise referral can be issued to the Commerce Department, but the plaintiffs said that such a referral is not possible, the case has been narrowed to record issues and the move signals a concession on the facts (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00192).

The Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government provided a countervailable subsidy via the provision of carbon emission permits to exporter Hyundai Steel violates the law, Hyundai argued in a July 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since the requirement to buy carbon emission permits places a cost on the company, and the Korean government didn't forgo revenue by providing an additional permit allocation to Hyundai, the provision of the permits doesn't constitute a countervailable benefit, the complaint said (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #22-00170).

The Commerce Department erred by selecting Brazil as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review then using log input data from Malaysia, exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. said in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Senmao also contested Commerce's decision to deny the exporter a byproduct offset, revise the Brazilian surrogate value data for plywood and select Brazil as the primary surrogate while rejecting its log data, adjusting the plywood data and revising the financial ratios (Jiangsu Senmoa Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00190).

The Commerce Department submitted its remand results July 5 in an antidumping duty review challenge originally brought by Risen Energy Co. at the Court of International Trade. Commerce switched its positions on applying adverse facts available over unreported factors of production data -- reverting to neutral facts available -- and on how to value silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency stuck by its positions, though, on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. The latter two positions remain contested by the plaintiffs, but they consented to Commerce's switch on the FOP data and silver paste (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03743).

The Court of International in a July 7 opinion upheld CBP's decision to deny Shuzhen Zhong a customs broker's license. Zhong, appearing pro se and seeking to get to a passing grade of 75% or higher on a customs broker license exam, appealed the answers to two questions. Judge Jane Restani ruled that CBP's decision to deny credit for both questions was backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade properly held that President Donald Trump violated the law by revoking an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard duties, plaintiff-appellees led by the Solar Energy Industries Association and Invenergy Renewables said in two reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SEIA, in its brief, along with Nextera Energy, argued that the trade court correctly found that "all the tools of statutory construction" show that the law prevents trade-restrictive changes to the safeguard measure (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).

CBP improperly classified wearable blankets in contravention of its own guidance, said Cozy Comfort in a June 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort v. U.S., #22-00173). The agency's rate advance ran counter to its own guidance that sherpa-lined garments are not classifiable in heading 6110.