Sufficient evidence exists to back the Commerce Department's contentions on a countervailing duty review of wood mouldings and millwork products from China, both the Department of Justice and CVD petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers said in a pair of reply briefs. The defendant and defendant-intervenor pushed the court to accept Commerce's arguments that it properly countervailed respondent Yinfeng's purchases of acrylic polymer and alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with its benchmarks for the provision of plywood and sawn wood for less than adequate remuneration and land-use rights for LTAR (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00088).

The Commerce Department didn't follow the Court of International Trade's instructions when it continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the high China-wide rate, the consolidated plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export, argued in a Dec. 29 brief. The plaintiffs blasted Commerce's justification for the move -- that it had a limited record for calculating the separate rate respondents' actual rates -- since "this deficiency is of Commerce's own making" (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).

CBP will suspend liquidation for entries of solar cells subject to Section 201 safeguard duties over the past 10-15 months, following to a Court of International Trade decision that invalidated a Trump-era increase in safeguard duty rates on solar cells and the withdrawal of an exemption for bifacial cells (see 2111170038), CBP said in a CSMS message Dec. 27.

Counsel for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing resubmitted its entry of appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 23, attempting to bring its filing in line with court rules. The appellate court previously found that the notice was not in compliance with court rules since the filing party, Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, didn't have an electronic filing account (see 2112160069). In the updated filing, Steven Gordon was listed as principal counsel for Royal Brush (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade again said, sustaining the agency's remand results dropping the adjustment. In a Dec. 28 opinion, Judge Jane Restani also said that the issue of the date of the sale in the AD investigation was irrelevant since it wouldn't change the result of the investigation, which was a de minimis rate for respondent Borusan Mannesmann.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court ruling establishing that the Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FOP) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping duty case, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 22 brief. DOJ said that the Court of International Trade correctly held that Commerce's requirement for CONNUM-specific reporting isn't subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, as the plaintiff-appellant Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial argues, but rather an exercise of Commerce's discretion (Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2205).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained a remand redetermination from the Commerce Department that reverses the outcome of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, which had resulted in a CV duty order in 2020, but post-remand finds no countervailable subsidization.

The Court of International Trade erred when it said that there was no legal authority for expedited countervailing duty reviews, appellants told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in their opening brief. The appellants, led by the Canadian government, argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department in finding that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 27 ruled that CBP cannot use "bypass" liquidations when considering prior customs treatment. The appellate court held that the Court of International Trade erred when it took these bypass liquidations into its consideration of treatment previously afforded importer Kent International's children's bicycle seats (see 2111030031). Remanding the case to CIT, a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit, though, upheld the trade court's finding that there was no de facto "established and uniform practice" regarding the customs classification of kids' bike seats. The mandate awarded $127.02 in costs to appellant Kent International (Kent International v. United States, Fed. Circ. #21-1065, CIT #15-00135).

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).