The Court of International Trade in an April 25 order made public May 3 remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish filets from Vietnam. Writing the opinion for two separate cases -- one brought by the mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other brought by the Catfish Farmers of America -- Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's positions in the face of NTSF's challenges but remanded elements of the agency's review in the Catfish Farmers' case. The remanded elements include Commerce's conclusion over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contracting evidence over NTSF's ration of whole live fish to filets and the moisture content of NTSF's filets.

President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to cover "derivative" products beyond certain procedural timelines was illegal since it was not part of the Section 232 tariffs' original "plan of action," a group of three steel importers argued. Filing a response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellees took into account the Federal Circuit's previous ruling permitting a different tariff action beyond procedural time limits to argue that the expansion onto derivatives was illegal.

The Court of International Trade in an April 29 order consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The cases, one brought by Kingtom Aluminio, and the other brought by Industrial Feliciano Aluminum, J.L. Trading Corp. and Puertas y Ventanas, contest CBP's position that Kingtom evaded the orders by transshipping aluminum extrusions through the Dominican Republic. Kingtom filed its complaint on April 8, arguing that CBP's position that Kingtom had exports subject to the orders is an abdication of its responsibility to conduct AD/CVD administrative reviews (see 2204110031) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).

The Court of International Trade in an April 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop Section 232 duties from antidumping duty review respondent Power Steel's U.S. price for two entries of steel concrete rebar. The result is a de minimis dumping rate for Power Steel. In the one-page order, Judge Jane Restani said that as no party intends to submit further filings, the remand is sustained.

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, didn't need to file a protest to establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries since there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation, SIS said in an April 29 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ continues to "improperly oversimplify the analysis" by repeating the "mantra" that the importer was required to file a protest to contest the liquidation of the entries, SIS argued, seeking remand to the Court of International Trade (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1161).

The Court of International Trade in a May 2 order rejected Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's bid to establish expedited briefing and consideration of its challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposit instructions. Judge Timothy Reif said that the exporter failed to establish that "good cause" exists to expedite the case since the company's requested relief can be granted even after the deadline to withdraw its request for the fourth review of the AD order on softwood lumber products from Canada.

Importer DSM Nutritional Products moved on April 27 to designate a test case in its tariff classification challenge on beta-carotene products, in a bid to place six other cases under one other action at the Court of International Trade. Five of the other cases were brought by DSM (see 2110270052) and one other by American International Chemical (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade found that antidumping duty review respondent Shandong New Continent Tire accurately reported its U.S. sales prices and affiliated parties. After voluntarily requesting the remand, Commerce said it was able to verify New Continent's U.S. prices and affiliations in the highly redacted remand results (Pirelli Tyre v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case, establishing a de minimis dumping margin for exporter Power Steel Co. As no party submitted any further filings over the remand results, Judge Jane Restani affirmed the remand in a one-page judgment. On remand, Commerce found that Power Steel didn't pay Section 232 duties on two entries of steel concrete rebar, dropping the duties from the company's sales prices when establishing its base export price.

The Court of International Trade granted steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's request to file a second amended complaint in its challenge to the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. The amended complaint tacks on two additional entries that were denied the Section 232 exclusions since they cover the same products. The motion went unopposed from the U.S. (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).