The Court of International Trade upheld in part and sent back in part the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on uncoated paper from Brazil. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled Commerce properly found that respondent Suzano's derivative losses were not investment losses or extraordinary. Suzano had said the losses were extraordinary and thus should be excluded from its costs of production.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce legally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity was for less than adequate remuneration but did not confer a benefit. The agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence, the judge said.

The Court of International Trade dismissed a suit from SXP Schultz Xtruded Products seeking a refund of Section 232 duties on four different entries for which an exclusion was granted, saying the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Jennier Choe-Groves said SXP would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) if it filed a protest to contest CBP's liquidation of the entries. The judge noted the contradiction in SXP's arguments on the futility of filing a protest since the importer timely filed a protest for a fifth entry of the same goods, leading to a refund of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's decision that antidumping respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. was not entitled to a separate duty rate in the 2016-17 administrative review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China since the company did not rebut the presumption of de facto state control. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes ruled the decision was reasonable since a labor union, which is affiliated with the Chinese government, is the majority shareholder of Zhejiang "and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's ruling that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision via evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities. While the judges found that Commerce erred in not considering exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's arguments over the value added in its UAE production processes, the court said this was a harmless error.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China. Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products raised several challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection that Judge Mark Barnett found unconvincing. The court did not address whether the surrogate data Commerce used was the best available but only "whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information," Barnett said in his April 11 opinion. "Although Commerce’s explanation is not as thorough as it could be, the court can discern the agency’s path of reasoning," Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the sixth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Jane Restani ruled Commerce did not properly use adverse facts available for respondent Risen Energy Co.'s alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, finding the exporter provided enough gap-filling information from its customers to show that 95% of its sales did not benefit from the EBCP. Restani also sent back the agency's use of a 2010 CBRE market view report for Thailand in its land benchmark calculation and Commerce's use of Descartes data to value ocean freight.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 ordered the Commerce Department to redo parts of its final results of its first administrative review of the antidumping order on glycine from Japan. Judge Alexander Vaden remanded for Commerce to reconsider its determination that the "compensation for payment expense" was properly categorized as a general and administrative expense. The judge found that Commerce's decision to use generally accepted accounting principles-compliant research and development cost records instead of trial balances was supported by law and that Nagase waited too long in finding its own assessment rate error and cannot use the court to force a correction from Commerce.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking Section 301 exclusions on 31 entries for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, but he ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to include in the case's amended complaint key information about the merchandise at issue.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.