The Court of International Trade on April 22 sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by lumber suppliers to respondents in an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber. Judge Mark Barnett said that if Commerce continues to find that the respondents are the producers of the subject lumber, the agency must reconsider its decision to require an upstream subsidy allegation for lumber purchases within the class of covered merchandise.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 sent back the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, in part because the commission failed to take into account the effect of U.S. sanctions on Russia in assessing whether the Russian goods compete at the same level of competition as the good from the other nations.

The Court of International Trade on April 19 sent back the Commerce Department's pick of Brazil as the primary surrogate country, and the use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate value data, in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. After already remanding once for Commerce's failure to cite evidence in making its surrogate choices, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said she "must now remand again for the same failure."

The Commerce Department misapplied the presumption of foreign state control by framing it as a burden on antidumping and countervailing duty respondents to "completely disprove potential government control," exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. argued in an April 18 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).

The U.S. on April 17 filed for partial reconsideration of a Court of International Trade judgment that held the government waited too long to make a demand for payment under a customs bond, violating an "implied contractual term." The government said that it couldn't have "anticipated raising or discussing the issue" of an "implied contractual term of a reasonable time for demand," so it seeks to "do so here" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. qualified for a separate antidumping duty rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam, remarking that the agency failed to "show its work." Judge M. Miller Baker additionally remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating exporter Green Farms' AD rate and selection of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation for setting the rate for exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 said that after the Commerce Department decided to continue an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes initially paused in 1996, it must use the original investigation period, 1995-96, and not the later period of 2018-19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the statute and congressional intent are clear that when Commerce resumes a suspended AD investigation, it must stick with the original investigation period.

The Commerce Department on April 16 once again found, on remand, that the South Korean government’s cap-and-trade carbon emissions program was de jure specific to one of the program’s users, a steel exporter (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00029).

The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public April 16 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube Exports in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India.