A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted on CBP's website Aug. 12, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADCVD Search page.

The Commerce Department properly included importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 12. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with the importer as to the ambiguity in the orders' scope and on whether its aluminum sheet falls outside the orders' scope, since it's heat-treated.

The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Aug. 12 on the following antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CVD rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):

The Commerce Department has published the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Turkey (A-489-829), calculating an 18.87% AD rate for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and affiliated company Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S., the mandatory respondent. If the agency's finding is continued in the final results, importers of subject merchandise from Colakoglu entered between July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, would be assessed AD at importer-specific rates. A new 18.87% AD cash deposit rate would take effect for Colakoglu upon publication of the final results in the Federal Register.

The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of an antidumping duty administrative review on common alloy aluminum sheet from South Africa (A-791-825). The final results of this review will be used to set importer assessments for one South African company for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:

The Commerce Department has published the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (A-428-844). The agency calculated a zero percent AD rate for AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke. If the agency's finding is continued in the final results, importers of subject merchandise from Dillinger entered May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024, won't be assessed AD, and future entries from Dillinger wouldn't be subject to an AD cash deposit requirement until further notice. Any changes to rates for Dillinger would take effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this review.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned a district court decision to block the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) access to sensitive data at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Education Department. A consumer advocate panned the decision.

The Commerce Department has published the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (A-570-106). The administrative review now covers 21 companies, including two mandatory respondents, that remain out of 70 after Commerce rescinded the review for 49 companies with no reviewable, suspended entries or for which a review request was timely withdrawn (see Appendix IV of the notice).

The U.S. "myopically" focused on a "single piece of evidence" regarding the proper date of sale of exporter Toyo Kohan's U.S. sales in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plate flat-rolled steel from Japan, Toyo Kohan argued in an Aug. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government's brief centered on a statement in the exporter's questionnaire responses and the "price of a single example sales transaction" and says this focus is "reasonable," yet it's unreasonable to "ignore the second example in the same exhibit" that shows a price change, the brief said (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).