The Commerce Department improperly, and knowingly, double-counted Chinese exporter Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co.'s dumping margin in the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube, Ailong argued in a May 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce admitted as much, recognizing that Malaysian surrogate value data used for square tube, just one factor of production, included further processed square tube and the raw square tube used by Ailong, the exporter said (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00116).

The Commerce Department properly relied on a questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, the U.S. argued in a May 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge, didn't take issue with the verification methodology until litigation and the methodology is in line with Commerce's actions in prior crises, so the questionnaire should be sustained, Commerce argued (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00007).

The Court of International Trade in a May 12 opinion sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's specificity finding for the subsidization of electricity in China while sending back elements relating to the use of adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce's land value benchmark and ocean freight benchmark. Restani said that if Commerce drops the EBCP from its subsidy calculation but doesn't appeal, as it has done in the past, it must explain why the court shouldn't provide some other form of relief such as an injunction on the continued inclusion of the program with no attempt at verification of non-use.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 10 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett gave the litigants until May 17 to review the opinion to look over business confidential information (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).

CBP incorrectly denied U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement eligibility to jewelry imported by AAA Jewelers, the importer said in a complaint filed May 9 with the Court of International Trade. AAA Jewelers says its 21-karat and 22-karat gold jewelry pieces were manufactured in Oman and should qualify as Omani originating goods because the total value of materials produced plus the direct costs aren't less than 35% of the appraised value of the goods at the time of entry into the U.S. as required by General Note 31. AAA Jewelers said that the non-originating gold and copper are substantially transformed three separate times in Oman. The first transformation occurs when the 24-karat bars are alloyed with copper to reduce the gold content down to 21- and 22-karat gold, then again when the gold alloy is further processed and manufactured into gold wire, castings and stampings, and finally when the wire, castings and stampings are turned into the finished jewelry.

The Commerce Department illegally used one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit, mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and non-selected respondent AJU Besteel Co. argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138) (AJU Besteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00139).

The Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 10 opinion. As a result, Commerce properly applied adverse facts available, Judge Leo Gordon ruled. Issuing his second opinion in the case after Jangho vied for a rehearing over its unaddressed "alternative arguments," Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.

The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case led by exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request, the U.S. argued in a May 6 reply brief. Responding to Yuhua's arguments attempting to establish jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), and in the alternative, Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, DOJ argued that the decision to not start a scope inquiry is not a reviewable decision under Section 1581(c) (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).