The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 29 for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China regarding the use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The government said the Commerce Department's decision to use AFA on sales made by the respondent to U.S. customers who verified they didn't use the EBCP is inconsistent with the trade court's prior rulings on the program, which have bucked the use of AFA for U.S. buyers who have provided such verification (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

The International Trade Commission disagreed Sept. 24 that it was basing its finding of critical circumstances for pea protein from China on the Commerce Department’s own independent critical circumstances determination (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

The Commerce Department on Sept. 26 stuck with its valuation of solar glass, an input in solar cells, and altered its adverse facts available calculations in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. The result left the AD rates for respondents Jinko Solar and Risen Energy unchanged, with Jinko receiving a 20.99% rate and Risen getting a 12.24% rate (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).

Countervailing duty petitioner Titan Tire dropped its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).

The U.S. on Sept. 24 opposed a company’s motion to resume its case challenging the end of de minimis, arguing that the case still raises the same legal questions as V.O.S. Selections vs. U.S. despite a new executive order officially rescinding de minimis globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).

The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.

The Commerce Department on Sept. 24 again maintained its calculation of an input’s tier two price benchmark and again applied adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in its new results on remand regarding the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on Chinese multilayered wood flooring (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 upheld the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C). CAFC Judges Todd Hughes and Alan Lourie, along with Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sitting by designation, held that the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose."

The Commerce Department adequately supported its decision to find that antidumping respondent Compania Valencia de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate, Bancolor Baux, only sold common alloy aluminum sheet in one level of trade in its home market of Spain, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Judge Mark Barnett said the relevant AD statute doesn't require Commerce to "recognize a distinct level of trade in connection with any differences in selling activities," finding the agency's level of trade regulations to comply with the AD laws.