The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 28 opinion upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China. Importer Prime Time Commerce had argued that Commerce should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin. The court upheld that Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies during the remand period at the trade court. The appellate court ruled that while the trade court erred by finding that Commerce could not accept Prime Time's submissions as an "interested party," the error was a harmless one and does not require a remand.

The Court of International Trade in a June 24 opinion denied plaintiff Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' move to amend its complaint in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case. The company sought to "amend its complaint to explicitly contest CBP’s denial of its protests with respect to the xanthan gum entries subject to the EAPA" decision. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected the motion as "untimely and futile." The judge said the delay in amending the complaint was undue given how long it took the plaintiff to propose the change and its lack of attempts to make the change until deep into litigation. Katzmann also said the plaintiff failed to identify the specific protests it's contesting.

The Court of International Trade in a June 17 opinion denied plaintiffs Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas injunctive relief from paying cash deposits stemming from the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm from paying the 538.79% cash deposit rate or that they were likely to succeed on the merits. Vaden further held that the balance of equities and public interest favor the U.S. when considering an injunction on the cash deposits.

The Court of International Trade in a June 16 opinion found that the Commerce Department was right to use the expected method when determining the non-selected respondent's rate in the antidumping review of steel nails from Taiwan. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the burden was on the plaintiffs, led by PrimeSource Building Products, to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs gave no evidence to back their claim that the expected method was not reasonably reflective of their actual margins.

CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, for collected antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, the Court of International Trade said in a series of three nearly-identical opinions. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that it must revert to step two of the Chevron analysis to rely on CBP's interpretation of how to administer the CDSOA and define how interest is earned on AD/CV duties. The court also held that given that the interest is put into a single sum after liquidation, it loses its "individual character" and is no longer interest earned on the duties.

The Court of International Trade in a June 16 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the case, Commerce dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite continuing to find that a PMS existed during the review. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld the elimination of the PMS adjustment for the sales-below-cost test.

The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final negative determination in the antidumping duty investigation on wood mouldings and millwork products from Brazil. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that Commerce properly combined exporters Araupel and Braslumber Industria de Molduras into a single entity and correctly didn't apply the major input rule to certain log purchases. Commerce was also right to revise Araupel's general and administrative expenses to account for fair value adjustments associated with the annual revaluation of standing trees in the company's unharvested forests, it said.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 15 opinion affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling in an anti-circumvention inquiry on hardwood plywood from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's ruling that certain hardwood plywood was commercially available before Dec. 8, 2016, and did not constitute later-developed merchandise that circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The appellate court ruled this decision was properly made and said the record reflects the availability of the merchandise before the orders.

The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results over the antidumping duty review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the case's most recent remand, Commerce dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel but kept the adjustment to the other mandatory respondent Husteel's normal value when calculating non-examined respondent SeAH Steel's rate. In the opinion, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the PMS adjustment drop for Hyundai but remanded the PMS adjustment as it pertains to SeAH's rate.

The Court of International Trade in a June 14 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy. The case was led by Ellwood City Forge Co., the AD petitioner, which argued against Commerce's use of a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. Judge Stephen Vaden sided with the U.S., holding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the verification question.