The Commerce Department reduced the antidumping duty rate for a collapsed entity, made up of exporter Siemens Gamesa, affiliated supplier Windar Renovables and five of Windar's subsidiaries, from 73% to 28.55% after reverting to the use of partial adverse facts available for the entity (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).

The Court of International Trade in a June 13 decision made public June 24 said the Commerce Department properly found that Aussie exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) for antidumping duties. Sustaining the second review of the AD order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce also properly declined to make a "standalone deduction" from the constructed export price for "profit resulting from the further manufacture of the steel in the United States."

Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. on June 21 petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for either a panel or en banc rehearing of its decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21 sustained the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, keeping the CVD rate for respondent Marmen Energy just above the de minimis threshold at 1.18%.

The Court of International Trade on June 20 said that the Commerce Department's amended antidumping duty finding, excluding Turkish exporter Colakoglu from the AD order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey, doesn't invalidate the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif, during June 13 oral argument, expressed skepticism at Turkish exporter Erdemir's bid to stay in court under Section 1581(i) in its case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to hold a reconsideration proceeding regarding whether Turkish hot-rolled steel flat products injured the U.S. market (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT Consol. # 22-00349).

A Turkish rebar exporter and the government held oral arguments last week over the countervailability of a Turkish subsidy that Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann implied could be considered de jure, but not de facto, specific. They also debated the reliability of a report on land benchmark prices that was prepared specifically for litigation and that included government rates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00131).

The Court of International Trade dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' challenge to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese solar cells to its Vietnamese solar cell entries for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

An exporter of vehicle side bars said the U.S. is wrongly relying on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit patent case to convince the trade court to rule against that exporter (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

The Commerce Department reconsidered on remand its model match hierarchy in the antidumping duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers (SAP) from South Korea, opting to go with the hierarchy made of centrifugal retention capacity "in 6 g/g increments" it used in the investigation's preliminary determination but not in the final decision (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).