The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury findings on mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. Judge Stephen Vaden said ITC's errors, which included "mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery" regarding claims that the mattress industry was more segmented than the commission believed, were harmless. Despite the errors, the commission "made the necessary findings to have its decision supported by substantial evidence," the opinion said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's case challenging CBP's antidumping evasion finding against the company's cased pencil imports. Judge Mark Barnett said Royal Brush had to file a protest with CBP to allow the court to order reliquidation for its entries, which the agency illegally liquidated, so CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. The company imported five entries, two of which were assessed the AD duties and three of which were not.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In the remand results, Commerce continued to find that exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale during the review was not a bona fide sale, subjecting the company to the 251.65% China-wide AD rate. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's results weren't "legally inconsistent" and the agency wasn't barred by statute or its past practice from conducting a bona fide analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 18 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce adequately explained how its differential pricing analysis (DPA) methodology, used to root out "masked" dumping, is "reasonable." This methodology recently returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a separate case after the appellate court previously raised questions on the use of the DPA, specifically the use of the Cohen's d test.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in an evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. In one, Far East American v. U.S., the Commerce Department reversed course and said that exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders at issue. In the other, Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an importer's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in an AD/CVD evasion case.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 12 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping investigation into polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. In the proceeding, the agency did not conduct on-site verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Richard Eaton found Commerce's failure to produce a verification report prior to issuing its final determination was illegal. As a result, Asia Pacific was "blindsided" by the use of adverse facts available, which led to a 26.07% AD rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. Judge Richard Eaton sustained a particular market situation finding based on an export levy the Indonesian government set in 2015, as well as the agency's method for accounting for Renewable Identification Numbers, which decreased U.S. price. The judge sent back Commerce's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when setting respondent Wilmar Trading's normal value, as based on constructed value, to address the potential imposition of a double remedy. Eaton also sustained the use of adverse facts against exporter Musim Mas.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that large industrial shredders imported from Germany were classifiable as machines built for the purpose of “crushing and grinding,” despite CBP's arguments their use of blades for that purpose made them cutting machines instead. Granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it directed CBP to classify the shredders, imported by U.S. company Vecoplan, under the duty-free subheading 8479.82, rather than as "other" machines of subheading 8479.89, as CBP had classified them.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 8 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's 2018-19 antidumping review of stainless steel flanges from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu found fault with Commerce's selection of only one individual respondent in the review, which led to the non-individually examined exporters receiving the lone respondent's 145.25% adverse facts available rate. Stanceu added that these companies were also assessed the AFA rate rate in violation of the statute's "reasonable method" requirement.