President Donald Trump did not violate procedural timelines when he raised tariffs on Turkish steel from 25 to 50% in August 2018, beyond the 90-day deadline and 15-day implementation period for initial Section 232 tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 opinion. Reversing a Court of International Trade decision, the Federal Circuit threw a wrench in a key argument against certain Section 232 tariffs that action beyond the statutory timelines should not be allowed.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, in a July 12 order. In its case, exporter Ancientree challenged three aspects of the review -- Commerce's selection of Romania as the primary surrogate country, the agency's financial ratio calculation and its selection of Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings for surrogate value inputs. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Romania pick and surrogate values selection were properly supported but that Commerce's explanation of its financial ratio calculation was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court of International Trade issued a pair of decisions on July 12 applying precedent from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision which found that strike pin anchors are not within the scope of the antidumping duty orders on steel nails from Vietnam. One of the decisions found masonry anchors from Midwest Fastener Corp. aren't subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel nails from Vietnam. The other, brought by Fastenal Company Purchasing, said that the company's zinc and nylon anchors "do not fall within the scope of Commerce’s antidumping order on certain steel nails from China." The Federal Circuit opinion, titled OMG, Inc. v. U.S., rejected Commerce's logic that the drive pin component of the anchors is basically a nail.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea in a July 9 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett upheld the results after Commerce dropped its adverse inference against Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Hyosung Corporation when calculating their antidumping duty rates. The result left both respondents in the review with a zero percent duty rate.

The Court of International Trade will stop liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the List 3 or 4A Section 301 China tariffs imported by the thousands of plaintiffs in the Section 301 litigation, a majority of judges on the three-judge CIT panel said in a July 6 opinion that granted a preliminary injunction. "To give the parties time to implement appropriate procedures, gather pertinent information, and otherwise take necessary action to comply with this order, the court will temporarily restrain liquidation of any unliquidated entries of merchandise imported from China by any plaintiffs in the Section 301 Cases which are subject to List 3 or List 4A duties," it said.

In a June 29 opinion, the Court of International Trade ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case since the importer only protested its first liquidation, but did not protest a second reliquidation. The lawsuit over the remaining 11 entries that the importer fully protested continues. The importer, Bral Corporation, says the imported plywood was defective and should therefore be reassessed duties at 18% of its original value.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results dropping a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for antidumping duties on South Korean heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, in a June 24 decision. Mandatory respondent Dong-A Steel Co. is now set to see its dumping margin drop to 11%, and Kukje Steel Co. to 7.89%. Since HiSteel was not party to the litigation, it's "not entitled to revised rates calculated on remand," Katzmann said.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's finding that tapered roller bearings exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping proceeding, in a June 23 decision. After reconsidering rejected evidence as instructed by Judge Gary Katzmann, Commerce still held that ZMC could be controlled by the Chinese government. ZMC, through multiple layers of ownership, is owned by the Zhejiang Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission within the government of China, and a labor union for ZMC parent company Zhejiang Sunny I/E Corp. Since the ultimate owners of the labor union's shares were members of Sunny's government-run employee stock ownership committee, the Chinese government can exert control over ZMC, Commerce found.

The Court of International Trade dismissed all but one of importer Maple Leaf Marketing's claims against Section 232 steel tariffs levied against goods shipped to Canada for further processing then re-imported to the U.S., in a decision issued late on June 22. Finding that the president has broad authority to determine the "nature of the action necessary to adjust imports that threaten the national security," a three-judge panel tossed Maple Leaf's challenges to the imposition of the tariffs on Canada, which Maple Leaf had argued was untimely, as well as to the assessment of Section 232 duties on steel articles qualifying for repair and alteration treatment under Chapter 98, among other things. The trade court allowed Maple Leaf's remaining challenge of the Commerce Department's denial of its request for exclusions from the duties to proceed.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is a de jure specific domestic subsidy of Spain's olive industry in a June 17 opinion. Finding for the second time that Commerce’s interpretation of the statute is contrary to law in a countervailing duty investigation into ripe olives from Spain, Judge Gary Katzmann found that the agency cannot permissibly find that the CAP was a countervailable specific domestic subsidy since “there is no uniform treatment across the agricultural sector in the provision of benefits.” Katzman also found Commerce also cannot permissibly say that raw olives are a “prior stage product” of table olives to find that subsidies to olive growers are attributable to olive producers.