The Court of International Trade on April 22 remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2015 expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's decision not to account for subsidies received by lumber suppliers to the CVD respondents and its decision to use exporter Fontaine's 2014 fiscal year tax returns to conduct benefit calculations for the 2015 review period. Barnett sustained Commerce's instructions to CBP to liquidate entries from companies that received de minimis rates without regard to CV duties, along with the agency's finding that Canadian and Quebecois logging tax credits were countervailable benefits.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said it was "unreasonable" for the ITC to view the conditions of competition over a 42-month review period without considering the effects of competition at the end of the period and on the day that it voted, particularly in light of the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed over the last four months of the review period. The judge also cited as reasons for the remand the commission's failure to consider contrary evidence of the effects of sanctions on Russian OCTG and the ITC's inclusion of non-subject South Korean imports in its analysis. She upheld the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Argentina and Mexico with goods from Russia and South Korea.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the Commerce Department's results in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back the agency's pick of Brazil as a surrogate country, along with the use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data, because it failed to cite evidence on the record to support the choice. The court also remanded Commerce's decision to adjust the Brazilian plywood dataset by removing Spanish import data.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. established a right to a separate antidumping rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam. Judge M. Miller Baker said the agency failed to "show its work." The judge said that, even if Commerce properly granted East Sea a separate rate, it erred in assigning the company its AD rate, which the agency based on its cash deposit rate. Baker additionally sent back Commerce's use of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation in setting exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s AD rate.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to use the 2018-19 investigation period for its antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The investigation was resumed after being suspended multiple times since 1995, wrote Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, saying that the statute and congressional intent are clear that Commerce, when resuming a suspended investigation, must continue with the original investigation period. The judge made this decision after first finding that U.S. grower Red Sun Farms requested the continuation of the investigation when it made its request in 2019. Choe-Groves said that U.S. companies can make new requests for the continuation of suspended investigations after each suspension.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly instructed Commerce to invoke the specific statutory provision on which it relies on remand and explain either how the use of AFA promotes accuracy or how Garg Tube failed to respond to the best of its ability. The judge also rejected Garg Tube's challenge to Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping due to the company's failure to raise the issue administratively.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 remanded the Commerce Department's duty drawback calculation methodology for exporter Assan Aluminyum that led to a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce incorrectly applied the drawback adjustment to all Assan's U.S. sales although only some contributed directly to the receipt of duty exemptions in Turkey during the investigation period. The judge also said Commerce failed to fully explain its decision by not addressing two claims from the AD petitioners, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group.

The Court of International Trade on April 10 said that neither the U.S. nor importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination properly classified entries of four types of notebooks with calendars, ultimately finding that the products fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10 as "diaries." Judge Jane Restani said that the Harmonized System should be interpreted to provide "conformity" between the French and English versions of the HS. As a result, the judge looked to the French and English definitions of the term "diary," which both describe as a notebook to write what one proposes or remembers what to do.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. CBP reversed course on its remand decision after the Commerce Department's scope referral decision finding the companies' products subject to the orders was changed in a separate CIT case. Judge Mark Barnett said the case should be sustained after no parties contested the reversed evasion finding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While Rimco filed suit under Section 1581(a) or, Section 1581(i) in the alternative, Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes said that jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) since the action's "true nature" was contesting a decision made by the Commerce Department.