The Commerce Department properly found that electricity in South Korea wasn't provided to two countervailing duty respondents for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade said in a June 13 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that the position is backed by substantial evidence and in line with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's prior ruling in the case. The Federal Circuit previously said that Commerce's reliance on a preferential-rate standard was illegal and that the agency failed to address the Korean Power Exchange's impact on the South Korean electricity market. Both issues were addressed, leading to Choe-Groves to sustain the remand.

The Commerce Department appropriately found that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and thus rightly decided not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price in an AD case, the Court of International Trade said. In a a May 31 opinion that was made public June 10, Judge Richard Eaton said that the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser."

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 9 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. In the investigation, Commerce disregarded exporter Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's home market sales and nearly all of its reported costs due to a particular market situation in Indonesia. The agency said the PMS existed based on a Public Service Obligation program that requires biodiesel producers to sell a certain amount of biodiesel in Indonesia at a market-set price. Commerce also found a PMS for Wilmar's crude palm oil costs based on the Indonesian government's export tax and export levy on CPO, which lowers its cost. In a letter filed about the confidential opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 16 to review any confidential information (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00121).

The Commerce Department in June 9 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade no longer found that a particular market situation existed in India regarding the price of hot-rolled coil. Making the switch under protest, Commerce said that since it found that a PMS no longer exists, the other remanded issues in the case are moot (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss an importer's lawsuit that improperly challenges CBP assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties rather than the underlying duty calculations done by the Commerce Department, the government said in a June 8 brief. The trade court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the true nature of importer Rimco's claim is a challenge to the amount of duties determined by Commerce rather than the enforcement by CBP, DOJ said. The protest and subsequent suit are an attempt to "hide its own failure to challenge Commerce's determinations when it had the opportunity" by essentially circumventing administrative avenues for addressing AD/CVD rate calculations, the government said (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion denied Indian exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's (GFL's) bid for injunctive relief against liquidation and paying cash deposits from a countervailing duty investigation. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that it would likely face harm without the preliminary injunction since the company failed to show that future refunds of excess cash deposits would be an "inadequate remedy." As for the injunction on liquidation, the court said that there's no draft order in "satisfactory form" that could allow the court to issue the standard injunction against liquidation. However, Stanceu gave the plaintiff 30 days to renew the injunction bid.

The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 dismissed a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Department report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no "imminence requirement" in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute."

The Court of International Trade in a May 31 opinion made public June 10 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. The U.S. Steel Corporation filed the case to argue that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas for the antidumping duties paid on the subject entries by decreasing the invoice price by the amount of the duties, and that Commerce should've deducted from the exporter's U.S. price because of it. Judge Richard Eaton said this was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser," and that no evidence was presented that would prove the importer was reimbursed.

The Commerce Department improperly relied on the Cohen's d statistical test when deciding to use an "average-to-transaction" as opposed to an "average-to-average" comparison of sales to calculate exporter HiSteel's dumping margin, HiSteel argued in a June 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce used the test without establishing the conditions needed to make the test work as pointed out in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, the exporter said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).