The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from China, covering entries in 2017-2018. Judge Richard Eaton said that, while Commerce could get a more accurate "all-others rate" by tapping more than two mandatory respondents, its decision to only have two and only use one of their rates when establishing the all-others rate was not illegal. The judge also held that Commerce's valuation of the mandatory respondents' live freshwater crawfish factors of production under EU tariff subheading 0306.30.10, providing for live, fresh or chilled freshwater crawfish, is backed by substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. Mandatory respondent Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. and its importer, Optima Steel International, brought the case to challenge Commerce's liquidation instructions, which included the wrong name for Tokyo Steel, resulting in an improper liquidation since the company had its own rate in the review. Commerce requested the remand to fix the error.

The Court of International Trade remanded on Dec. 13 the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon held that Commerce didn't group the different towers' control numbers together by any of the required 11 physical characteristics or use the characteristics as a "guidepost." Instead, the agency adjusted the towers' costs by weight-averaging the reported steel plate costs for all the reported CONNUMs. Gordon asked Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 10 said the Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping respondent's cost of production for the purposes of a sales-below-cost test. A three-judge panel at the appellate court said that the statute -- a section of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 -- didn't allow for such an adjustment, and that a PMS adjustment is only permitted for constructed value. The case concerned an AD review for welded line pipe form South Korea, originally brought by respondents Hyundai Steel Co. and SeAH Steel Corp., and was appealed by petitioner Welspun Tubular.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case over an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, covering entries from 2013-14. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's switch to valuing a key solar cell input using Bulgarian imports rather than Thai imports after the court previously said the agency's use of the Thai surrogate data was improper. Under "respectful protest," Commerce used the Bulgarian data, and none of the plaintiffs, led by Solarworld Americas, Inc., objected.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, in a Nov. 30 opinion made public Dec. 8. Judge Richard Eaton remanded Commerce's use of total adverse facts available after finding that the agency failed to show that mandatory respondent BlueScope's responses created a gap in the record and didn't provide the company with a notice of deficient responses. The court ordered that Commerce shall use BlueScope's quantity and value submissions unless it gives a "reasoned explanation" as to why this data is unusable for key considerations in the review.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case over an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, covering entries from 2014-15. In her second opinion of the day, nearly identical to the first, Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's switch to valuing nitrogen using Mexican imports rather than Thai imports after the court previously said the agency's use of the Thai surrogate data was improper. Under "respectful protest," Commerce used the Mexican data, and none of the plaintiffs, led by Canadian Solar International Limited, objected.

The Court of International Trade upheld a Commerce Department scope ruling finding solar panel roof mountings from China Custom Manufacturing and Greentec within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In his Dec. 6 opinion, Judge Stephen Vaden sided with Commerce in finding that the mounts do not qualify for the finished merchandise exception and instead constitute subassemblies which are subject to the orders. Vaden did so even over plaintiffs' arguments that a previous interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion would have excluded the mounts from the orders.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 granted partial victory to an importer challenging the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its entries of solar cells, even though it says the entries preceded the date Commerce changed the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders to include the products. Aireko Construction said the entries should be reliquidated at zero percent AD/CVD rates. However, the importer had challenged the assessments based on a denied protest, rather than file its case under the proper jurisdiction to challenge Commerce's instructions to CBP. Without a valid challenge to those instructions, CIT ruled that it could only instruct CBP to reliquidate the entries according to Commerce's instructions, free of CV duties but at an AD duty rate of 42.33%.

The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case in a Dec. 3 order, finding that U.S. Steel does not have a "legally protectable interest that will be directly affected by the outcome of this action." The order echoes a previous ruling from the CIT, currently under appeal, that said U.S. Steel doesn't have the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case since it wouldn't be guaranteed the sale of goods denied the exclusion. In the Dec. 3 opinion, the court also denied U.S. Steel's motion to stay the case pending the appeal of the previous intervention ruling since the plaintiff may be prejudiced by the stay.