The Court of International Trade in a June 16 opinion found that the Commerce Department was right to use the expected method when determining the non-selected respondent's rate in the antidumping review of steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the burden was on the plaintiffs, led by PrimeSource Building Products, to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs gave no evidence to back their claim that the expected method was not reasonably reflective of their actual margins.

The Court of International Trade in a June 16 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the case, Commerce dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite continuing to find that a PMS existed during the review. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld the elimination of the PMS adjustment for the sales-below-cost test.

The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final negative determination in the antidumping duty investigation on wood mouldings and millwork products from Brazil. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce properly combined exporters Araupel and Braslumber Industria de Molduras into a single entity and correctly didn't apply the major input rule to certain log purchases. Commerce was also right to revise Araupel's general and administrative expenses to account for fair value adjustments associated with the annual revaluation of standing trees in the company's unharvested forests, it said.

CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, for collected antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, the Court of International Trade said in a series of three nearly-identical opinions. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that it must revert to step two of the Chevron analysis to rely on CBP's interpretation of how to administer the CDSOA and define how interest is earned on AD/CV duties. The court also held that given that the interest is put into a single sum after liquidation, it loses its "individual character" and is no longer interest earned on the duties.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 15 opinion affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling in an anti-circumvention inquiry on hardwood plywood from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's ruling that certain hardwood plywood was commercially available before Dec. 8, 2016, and did not constitute later-developed merchandise that circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The appellate court ruled this decision was properly made and said the record reflects the availability of the merchandise before the orders.

The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results over the antidumping duty review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the case's most recent remand, Commerce dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel but kept the adjustment to the other mandatory respondent Husteel's normal value when calculating non-examined respondent SeAH Steel's rate. In the opinion, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the PMS adjustment drop for Hyundai but remanded the PMS adjustment as it pertains to SeAH's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a June 14 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy. The case was led by Ellwood City Forge Co., the AD petitioner, which argued against Commerce's use of a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. Judge Stephen Vaden sided with the U.S., holding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the verification question.

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 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 Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 granted the U.S.' motion to dismiss 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.