CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam could only be challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because no other jurisdictions were available to provide relief of the "unprecedented" imposition of AD and CVD on merchandise not subject to an AD or CVD order, Greentech Energy Solutions said in its Oct. 12 response to DOJ's earlier motion to dismiss a case regarding imports of solar modules from Vietnam (Greentech Energy Solutions v. U.S., CIT # 23-00118).

The Commerce Department continued on remand to use antidumping duty respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper-suppliers as part of the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 13, Commerce also stuck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).

The Commerce Department is seeking additional "bites at the apple" in an Enforce and Protect Act case despite its evasion finding being unsupported, Norca Industrial Company said in an Oct. 11 reply at the Court of International Trade. Norca opposes CBP's request for an additional 90 days of remand proceedings, arguing that the issue is already decided since its carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are out of scope. "This inquiry should end. Not in 90 days, but now," Norca said (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00192).

The International Trade Commission "failed to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings" when it found that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry despite an earlier finding to the contrary, importer Strato argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strato v. U.S., CIT # 23-00158).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Oct. 12 opinion remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine. In the public remand order, Judge M. Miller Baker sent back the ITC's decision on the negligibility of imports from Russia, telling the agency to reconsider its calculation of in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico and the related finding that "there was only one importer each" for either country "in light of Customs data to the contrary" (PAO TMK v. United States, CIT # 21-00532).

The Commerce Department made no changes to subsidy rates calculated for the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, according to remand results it submitted to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00117).

The Commerce Department isn't allowed to rely on its past practice if it's contrary to a statute, though it "has sought to do just that in" the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce can't assign an individual company's adverse facts available rate to an entire collapsed entity in the present circumstances. The judge sent back the investigation for a second time, taking Commerce to task for ignoring the court's prior orders.

Canadian exporter Midwest-CBK filed a consent motion seeking to dismiss its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." or "domestic sales." The exporter said it "will not be able to provide further evidence" on the second phase of the litigation, which "would allow for determination of a dutiable value based on the "[Free on Board] Buffalo, New York" prices at which the company sold its imports to its U.S. customers. The company wants the issue resolved so it can "further the case's other issues on appeal" (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154).

The Court of international trade dismissed a case brought by Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand), which challenged the Commerce Department's determination that diamond sawblades produced in Thailand by Diamond Tools with Chinese cores and Chinese segments were circumventing antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China, according to an Oct. 10 filing (Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00143).

The Commerce Department didn't properly support its de jure specificity finding regarding a Chinese tax program that makes a resident enterprise's income derived from investment gains in another resident enterprise tax-exempt, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 11 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said the program, established under Article 26(2) of China's Enterprise Income Tax Law, is not tied to a specific enterprise or industry and thus fails the specificity analysis.