The Court of International Trade in a May 23 opinion sent back the CBP's position that Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co. didn't evade the antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that a remand is needed since CBP didn't review the entire record in the Enforce and Protect Act case and that it is unclear how CBP enforced compliance with the need to provide public summaries of confidential information. Kelly also denied defendant-intervenors Minh Phu's and MSeafood Corp.'s motion for supplemental briefing which argued that it only became aware of deficiencies in the record at oral argument.

The Court of International Trade in a May 20 opinion sided with the U.S. in finding sales of goods warehoused in Canada to U.S. customers were not "domestic sales" but actually sales "for exportation to the U.S." for valuation purposes. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that "undisputed evidence" shows that plaintiff Midwest-CBK's sales were exports to the U.S. at the time of sale. The judge also ruled that CBP's extensions of the liquidation deadlines were lawful and that the entries should not be deemed liquidated since CBP had a valid reason to extend the liquidation deadline. As a result of the opinion, the case now moves to phase two to tackle the remaining issues including the proper method for valuing the merchandise at issue.

The Court of International Trade in a May 20 opinion denied the right to intervene in a countervailing duty case for the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the coalition does not have a right to intervene in the action since it has not shown it has a "direct, immediate, or legally protectable interest in this case" or that the U.S. will not adequately represent its interests. The judge also said that it will not let the coalition intervene since it fails to show that it shares a defense to plaintiff GreenFirst's claims since it doesn't sufficiently allege that it will be adversely affected by a decision in the case. GreenFirst filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's decision to not start a changed circumstances review of the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada.

The Court of International Trade in a May 12 opinion made public May 20 remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. The plaintiffs, led by Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., challenged Commerce's use of adverse facts available on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program and the agency's use of a different plywood benchmark for different companies despite the fact that the companies used the same types of plywood.

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the antidumping administrative review into passenger vehicle and light truck tires, finding that tire exporter Pirelli Tyre Co. rebutted the presumption of Chinese government control for the first 10 months of the review. Pirelli was bought by Chinese company Chem China 10 months into the review, but Commerce originally held that Pirelli was owned by the Chinese government for the entire review. On remand, the agency said that Chem China didn't own Pirelli for the first 10 months, giving the exporter a 1.45% dumping rate for this period.

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the 2016 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovolvatic cells from China. In the most recent decision, the trade court sent back five elements of the review: Commerce's benchmark calculation for aluminum extrusions, the agency's benchmark determination for solar grade polysilicon, Commerce's use of adverse facts available in its specificity finding for the provision of subsidized electricity, the decision not to grant an entered value adjustment for Canadian Solar and its position on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.

The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett sent back Commerce's decision to use facts available over Hyundai's reporting of contested parts and its decision to use total adverse facts available to calculate Hyundai's margin. The judge upheld all other aspects of the review, including the use of AFA over Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and its completeness failure at verification.

The Court of International Trade issued a May 17 opinion addressing two cases brought by Voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the importer and purchaser of entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, respectively. The cases both concern reliquidation requests on various steel entries without the Section 232 duties, based on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's approval of exclusion requests. The exclusions each originally contained an invalid Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, but by the time the error was discovered in both cases, CBP had liquidated the entries with the duties.

The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by Hyundai Steel Co. over the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. On remand, Commerce dropped its reliance on facts available for Hyundai over a discrepancy in the reporting on two data fields once the agency gave the respondent a chance to clear up why the discrepancy existed. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., urged for the continued use of facts available. Judge Richard Eaton wasn't persuaded, though, finding that since Hyundai gave the requested information, Commerce made the right call in dropping the use of facts available.

The Commerce Department properly found that affiliated antidumping respondents Ghighi 1870 and Pasta Zara failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in reporting the U.S. payment dates for their pasta sales, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 4 opinion made public May 13. The court previously ruled that Commerce had not properly supported its use of adverse facts available over the reporting of the U.S. payment dates. On remand, Commerce further explained its position that errors in Ghighi and Zara's reporting of their U.S. payment dates was due to "inattention and carelessness." Judge Richard Eaton agreed, upholding the remand.