The Court of International Trade in two May 26 orders sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case, both brought by Turkish exporter Celik Halat. The cases contested the Commerce Department's decision to reject minutes-late submissions. Following a remand, the agency accepted the submissions, resulting in lowered AD/CVD rates for Celik Halat and the ultimate acceptance of the remand by the trade court.

Korean steel producer Nexteel filed a complaint May 25 with the Court of International Trade over alleged errors in calculating antidumping duty rates during an administrative review on oil tubular goods from Korea. In it, Nexteel, a non-individually examined separate rate company, challenges the rate Commerce calculated for Hyundai Steel that resulted in a higher average rate assigned to Nexteel and the other 29 non-individually investigated respondents (Nexteel Co., Ltd v. United States, CIT No. 22-00140).

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case led by Ellwood City Forge failed to challenge the legality of the questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions until the case reached the Court of International Trade, highlighting their failure to exhaust administrative remedies, exporter Bharat Forge argued. In a reply brief filed May 20, the exporter said the issue was "ripe for consideration" during the AD case, "yet Plaintiffs inexplicably did not raise" it (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).

Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under heading 0811 as "fruit and nuts," rather than under heading 2106 as "food preparations," the government said in a cross-motion for summary judgement filed with the Court of International Trade on May 23 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).

The Commerce Department's move to not fix a programming error in its antidumping margin calculation, which resulted in "irrelevant third country costs" getting assigned to sold but not produced products, was "unreasonable" and illegal, exporter Navneet Education Ltd. said in a May 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of such an error was "an overinflated and inaccurate dumping margin that did not reflect the reality of Navneet's de minimis margin that it should have received," the complaint said (Navneet Education Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00132).

CBP can reasonably interpret facts to establish that an importer is evading antidumping and countervailing duties in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, and doesn't need to establish that no other conclusion could possibly be drawn from the record in an EAPA case, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed May 20 (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT #21-00136).

Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge of the Court of International Trade, suggested that videoconferencing, which was rolled out as a salve for judicial proceedings in the face of COVID-19, is here to stay, especially for certain smaller proceedings in various trade cases. Speaking at the Georgetown International Trade Update on May 24, Barnett said that while in-person oral arguments are more in favor with the judges at the trade court, the prospect of continued videoconferencing to handle some smaller issues remains a real possibility for the court as it shifts out of the pandemic restrictions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate on May 23 in a classication case affirming a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches in agreement with CBP's classification following its March 30 opinion that upheld a previous decision by the Court of International Trade (see 2203300033). StarKist challenged CBP's classification under subheading 1604.14.10, which provides for prepared or preserved fish, including tuna, whole or in pieces, "but not minced" and "in oil."

Plaintiff and exporter Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. opposed a group of U.S. steel producers' motion in an antidumping duty case to hold an oral argument, telling the Court of International Trade that the motion is "unnecessary and disingenuous." In the May 20 filing, Prosperity argued that since the case has been going on for six years and the main issue in the case -- the decision to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Prosperity -- has been "extensively briefed," the need for oral argument is precluded (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00138).

The Commerce Department must "find a practical solution" to verify information from countervailing duty respondents' U.S. customers that shows that they did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade said in an opinion released May 20. Adding to a long line of CIT opinions striking down Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the EBCP, Judge Richard Eaton said that the agency can either find a solution to verify the non-use of the program on the record or recalculate the CVD rates for the two mandatory respondents, Dalian Meisen and Ancientree, without using the subsidy rate for the EBCP.