The Commerce Department incorrectly found that the South Korean government's provision of port-usage rights to countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co. was a countervailable benefit, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 26 opinion. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Hyundai built the port in exchange for the right to collect third-party fees, so the provision of port-usage rights might not be a benefit but rather a payment for "consideration," as used in contract law terms.

Trade attorney Julia Kuelzow has moved from Kelley Drye, where she worked as an associate, to Fenwick & West, where she now works as a trade and national security associate, per a notice at the Court of International Trade. At Fenwick, Kuelzow's practice centers on export controls and sanctions, shifting from her trade remedies work at Kelley Drye. Prior to working at Kelley Drye, Kuelzow served as a law clerk at CIT and as a junior dispute settlement lawyer at the World Trade Organization, according to her LinkedIn page.

The Commerce Department addressed "some of the distortions" in its earlier calculations on remand, but the department still undervalued the extent of dumping of multilayered wood flooring from China, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring coalition said in its Sept. 25 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT # 20-03948).

The Commerce Department correctly reexamined the "compensation for payment" expense and correctly declined to recalculate the antidumping duty rate for exporter Nagase on remand, DOJ said. In its Sept. 25 remand comments at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the final results in an AD administrative review on glycine from Japan fully complied with the remand order and Nagase can't show that the redetermination was unlawful (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).

The Court of International Trade should decline to follow another recent opinion regarding the statute of limitations on bond collection, due to "significant flaws" in its reasoning, DOJ said in a Sept. 25 reply at the Court of International Trade. That opinion in U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co. found that the six-year statute of limitations on customs bond collections ran from liquidation rather than the issuance of a bill (see 2308220054) (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).

The Commerce Department legally excluded importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 26 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that Commerce reasonably determined that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and a report from the International Trade Commission, established that the dividers didn't belong in the scope of the orders.

The Commerce Department properly hit exporter SeAH Steel Corp. with adverse facts available due to its failure to submit information on its use of the Korean Export-Import Bank Performance Guarantee program prior to the countervailing duty investigation period, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 26 opinion.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce incorrectly found that the South Korean government's provision of port-usage rights to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. was a countervailable benefit. Since the exporter built the port and was given the right to collect third-party fees in exchange, the port-usage rights are not a benefit but more akin to "consideration."

The Commerce Department reasonably explained its decision to include in-transmit mattresses in its quarterly ratio calculations for an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Indonesia, AD petitioner Brooklyn Bedding said in Sept. 22 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Respondent Zinus "points to nothing in the statute or Department practice that requires CEP inventory items to be 'physically held' by the seller at the time of sale," Brooklyn Bedding said (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).

The Commerce Department correctly reversed its use of adverse facts on remand in an antidumping duty review on imported steel nails from Oman, both DOJ and respondent Oman Fasteners said in two sets of remand comments, both filed Sept. 22 at the Court of International Trade (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).