The Commerce Department defended its finding that currency undervaluation in Vietnam is specific to the traded goods sector, submitting remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 15. The agency addressed various points the trade court sent back for further explanation, including Commerce's statutory authority for its specificity finding and the information the agency found missing from the record as its basis for using facts available (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00397).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 said the Korean government's full allotment of carbon emissions credits to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is de jure specific. Judge M. Miller Baker issued a decision in a pair of cases on the issue, finding that the conditions for eligibility for the additional credits aren't neutral and are based on "the substantive character" of the company's "operations."

The Commerce Department appropriately declined to countervail three debt-to-equity swaps received by exporter KG Dongbu Steel in the 2019 CVD review of corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 17. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the evidence doesn't support a finding that the government pressured nongovernmental institutions to take part in the company's debt restructuring. The court also upheld Commerce's reconsideration of its calculation of the "uncreditworthy benchmark rate" and "unequityworthy discount rate," given that no party contested the marks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 16 denied exporter Koehler Oberkirch's petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to have the appellate court review the Court of International Trade's decision that the government could effect service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Judges Timothy Dyk, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark said Koehler failed to meet the "demanding standard" for granting mandamus relief (In Re Koehler Oberkirch, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The United States on Jan. 13 joined plaintiff Elysium Tile in supporting the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand. Elysium said in its own comments that it was satisfied with Commerce’s new report of an ex parte meeting held with its competitor during a scope ruling proceeding (see 2412030060) (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

A food supplement producer’s products are dietary supplements, not food dyes or additives, the U.S. said Jan. 10 in a cross-motion for summary judgment filed in a case dating back to 2012 (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

The Commerce Department didn't fail to notify exporter Hyundai Steel Co. about deficiencies in its quantitative analysis in an antidumping review and also properly denied constructed export price adjustments to both Hyundai and exporter Husteel Co., the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15.

The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distoritive in the way that it controlled for inflation.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of cases held that the Commerce Department permissibly found the full allotment of emissions credits under a Korean cap-and-trade program to be de jure specific. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the 2019 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, finding that the criteria for the program's eligibility, which are international trade intensity and high production costs, are "neutral" and don't favor one enterprise or industry over another.

Petitioner The Mosaic Company brought two separate complaints to the Court of International Trade Jan. 13 contesting parts of the Commerce Department’s second countervailing duty review on Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer, respectively (The Mosaic Company v. United States, CIT #s 24-00229, -230).