The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department for a fourth time, finding that the agency's method for finding an all-others dumping rate was unreasonable. The court issued the opinion in a case over the AD duty investigation of hardwood plywood products from China in which the agency assigned the two mandatory respondents a zero percent and 114.72% adverse facts available rate. When finding the all-others rate, Commerce then departed from the expected method -- a move upheld by the court -- and averaged the two rates to get to a 57.36% all-others rate. CIT said rate was based on only one commercial invoice from the AD petition and not reasonably reflective of the all-other respondents' dumping margins.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review that made a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in a sales-below-cost test in a Sept. 23 order. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the statute does not permit PMS adjustment to sales-below-cost tests when calculating normal value. The ruling came in a case brought by mandatory respondents HiSteel and Kukje, which challenged an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results in a changed circumstances review on Argentine biodiesel, finding that the situation hadn't changed regarding countervailable subsidies for Argentina's biodiesel industry. Commerce based the underlying CVD order on an export tax differential between Argentine biodiesel and soybeans. The Argentine government then petitioned for a CCR, arguing that the rates were now equal. In the preliminary results of the CCR, Commerce held that the tax differential had in fact changed, slashing the CVD rate for biodiesel. After new evidence was given to the agency, Commerce found the biodiesel subsidy situation to be in "flux," eventually maintaining the original CVD rate.

The Court of International Trade denied importer Strategic Import Supply's motion for a reconsideration of its case over the proper countervailing duty rate for its tire imports in a Sept. 20 order. Finding that Strategic Import Supply didn't file a timely protest of CBP's decision to liquidate the imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, Judge Stephen Vaden again dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Strategic Import Supply sought reconsideration after CBP granted a nearly identical protest to the one subject to Vaden's previous dismissal.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's switch to neutral facts available from adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review due to the agency's failure to provide adequate assistance to a small, first-time respondent. The plaintiff -- Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co., referred to as the Elque Group -- challenged the final results of the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. In the court's first opinion in the case, Judge Gary Katzmann said that the Elque Group gave proper notice of its need for help, which Commerce failed to give. Commerce's move away from AFA will cause Elque Group's dumping margin to fall to 27.66%, from 110.9%.

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's motion to lift a stay and voluntarily remand an antidumping duty challenge to give the agency a chance to consider new information showing inaccuracies in the mandatory respondent's reported sales prices. Pirelli Tyre Co., who received the all-others rate in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Commerce said the inaccuracies are based on potential fraud.

The Court of International Trade sustained the remand results in two similar antidumping cases after the Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. The court issued two opinions on Sept. 17, both in cases brought by steel exporter Saha Thai Steel PIpe Public Co. which challenged the 2016-17 and 2017-18 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued three prior remands between the two cases, finding that the PMS adjustment was contrary to law.

The Commerce Department released a final rule making extensive changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. Currently scheduled for publication Sept. 20, the final rule modifies Commerce’s regulations on scope proceedings, new shipper reviews and the treatment of business proprietary information in AD/CVD proceedings. It also creates new provisions on importer certifications, covered merchandise referrals and anti-circumvention inquiries, and establishes deadlines for industry support comments at the beginning of AD/CVD investigations. Some provisions of the final rule are set to take effect Oct. 20, while others would be effective Nov. 4.

The Court of International Trade sustained the final results of an antidumping review on steel nails from Taiwan in a Sept. 14 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett also denied respondent Romp Coil Nails Industries' motion for a preliminary injunction pending the results of a related appeal in a different case. Barnett said that the Commerce Department's decision to use home market sales as the basis for normal value is in line with the law, and sustained Commerce's use of mandatory respondent Unicatch Industrial Co.'s above-cost sales to compute the constructed value profit.

The Court of International Trade issued two similar opinions remanding the Commerce Department's decision for a second time to include Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' "door thresholds" within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Finding that Commerce's remand in both cases relies on facts or inferences contradicted by other evidence and unsupported by any specific evidence, Judge Timothy Stanceu told the agency to go back to the drawing board on its scope rulings. Commerce must determine whether the finished merchandise exclusion applies to Worldwide and Columbia's door thresholds, the court said.