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 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.

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 Court of International Trade in a May 12 opinion sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's specificity finding for the subsidization of electricity in China while sending back elements relating to the use of adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce's land value benchmark and ocean freight benchmark. Restani said that if Commerce drops the EBCP from its subsidy calculation but doesn't appeal, as it has done in the past, it must explain why the court shouldn't provide some other form of relief such as an injunction on the continued inclusion of the program with no attempt at verification of non-use.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China in a May 10 decision. Issuing his second opinion in the case after the plaintiff-intervenors, all associated with Jangho Group, vied for a rehearing over their "alternative arguments," Judge Leo Gordon said that Commerce properly hit Jangho with adverse facts available over whether all aluminum extrusions suppliers are "authorities." Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a May 6 order upheld CBP's method for weighing importer New Image Global's tobacco wraps in a customs spat. Issuing a two-page order without an opinion, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling which said that CBP's "indirect method" for weighing New Image's tobacco wraps that included the weight of additives was legally and scientifically valid.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit locked in a 588.43% countervailing duty rate for Indian corrosion-resistant steel product exporter Uttam Galva in a May 5 opinion. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen found that Uttam Galva failed to disclose its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., warranting adverse facts available. The judges also said the exporter didn't show that LSIL's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to LSIL, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate.