The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion vacated part of its prior decision in an antidumping case remanding the Commerce Department's methodology for calculating an adverse facts available rate for mandatory respondent Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce can use the highest transaction-specific dumping margin for the other mandatory respondent in the review, Senmao, as the total AFA rate for Sino-Maple after initially rejecting the move. The opinion comes as part of the sixth AD review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Commerce did not submit a remand redetermination following Eaton's original decision but instead vied for reconsideration of the opinion.

A series of opinions from the Court of International Trade concerning whether the U.S. can file a counterclaim in classification cases do "not seem to change the fundamentals of classification litigation," customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in a blog post. If the opinions are sustained on appeal, potential government claims seeking a different classification than the one initially used at liquidation by CBP may just be moved "from the counterclaim bucket to the defense bucket," the post said.

The Court of International Trade will be closed Friday, Nov. 24, the day after Thanksgiving in addition to Thanksgiving. Judge Mark Barnett issued the order, noting it will "be observed as a holiday" by the court.

Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. asked for another 60 days to continue hammering out the details in the steel company's suit on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The parties initially sought a stay in August, telling the court that they had "reached an agreement in principle to settle the case" (see 2308100018). In their joint status report, NLMK and the U.S. said to effectuate the deal, the U.S. "must review NLMK's import data," adding that both sides are working to collect and review that data (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT # 21-00507).

The Commerce Department's continued use of adverse facts against Risen Energy for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and its benchmark calculations for land use and ocean freight were lawful and supported by substantial evidence on remand, DOJ said in a Sept. 29 response at the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).

U.S. steel companies "confuse" a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) seeking reconsideration of an International Trade Commission negligibility decision due to new facts with an "attack on the original negligibility decision," Erdemir said. Filing a reply brief to the steel companies' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual jurisdiction," Erdemir said the true nature of its action challenges the ITC's "refusal to initiate a reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the neglibitily determination" of hot-rolled steel from Turkey "in light of the successful appeal of Colakoglu" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Cambodia, upholding that the agency's use of a simple average in surrogate value cost calculations was legal and its use of financial statements from Emirates Sleep, DOJ said in Sept. 29 remand comments (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00281).

The Commerce Department unlawfully failed to offset interest expenses with interest income in calculating the costs of production for shrimp exporter Megaa Moda, the company said in a Sept. 29 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Megaa Moda Private Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00205).

The Commerce Department failed to support its position in a countervailing duty case that the South Korean government gave up some revenue through the provision of its emissions trading program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 29 opinion. Judge Mark Barnett wrote that while the Korean government may lose money by fully allocating emissions permits, it doesn't necessarily do so, given that companies that receive a standard allocation can obtain the permits through means that don't involve lining the government's pockets.

Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition's attempt to undermine the Commerce Department's remand decision finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier "fall[s] short," the U.S. said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).