The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on wood cabinets and vanities from China. After initially being instructed to find a practical solution to the issue of verifying non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Commerce asked CVD respondents Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. and the Ancientree Cabinet Co. to submit all loan information for each U.S. customer. Meisen found the information irrelevant and did not submit it in the form requested by the agency, while Ancientree submitted loan information for around 90% of its customers. Judge Richard Eaton upheld the use of adverse facts available on Meisen but sent back the decision for Ancientree, finding that perfection is not required to verify non-use.

A product's use is not a consideration regarding its classification at the subheading level when neither Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading the product could belong to is a use provision, the Court of International Trade ruled. Finding that ME Global’s heat-treated forged steel rods fell under CBP’s preferred classification of subheading 7228.40.00 as “other bars and rods, not further worked than forged,” Judge Richard Eaton said that ME Global could not use the products’ use nor reference to a subheading given that the court was evaluating two eo nomine headings. Eaton added that heading 7228 was more specific than 7236 and that subheading 7228.40.00 was more specific than 7228.30.80.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Judges Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark ruled that Commerce properly picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate country, valued bituminous coal with a known calorific value using Malaysian Harmonized System subheading 2701.19 and valued bituminous coal with an unknown calorific value using Romanian HS subheading 2701.12. Stark, the author of the opinion, said the appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., failed to exhaust arguments against the valuation of coal tar pitch.

The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results April 28 after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131). Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce’s selection of Malaysian data to value carbonized material was supported by substantial evidence. While each review is separate, Commerce is not prevented from acting in accord with prior reviews when the present review does not contain new information warranting a departure from prior practice, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade granted in part and remanded in part motions by the U.S. and petitioner Florida Tomato Exchange to dismiss challenges to several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, and subsequent suspension agreements. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the court has jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the AD investigation, which is under a suspension agreement, but does not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to Commerce's decision to terminate a suspension agreement.

The Court of International Trade in a pair of opinions upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece and in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on rebar from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said that, with respect to Commerce's attribution to respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret of subsidies received by affiliated ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, the agency didn't adequately explain its finding Nur was a cross-owned input supplier of primarily dedicated inputs. Commerce erroneously said that since it previously found that "scrap" is an input primarily dedicated to the production of downstream steel products, "it is a matter of routine." Katzmann ruled this prior decision was fact-specific and not applicable to the present case.

The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held April 25. Reversing a Court of International Trade ruling concerning imports of certain softwood lumber products from Canada, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto said that authority for the review process is found in the Uruguay Round Agreement Act's enactment of certain provisions that favor individual company determinations and the URAA's "grant of regulatory-implementation power to Commerce." Taranto, the opinion's author, added that logically, it is clear why an expedited process may be needed to ensure that the individualized determination preference of the statute is implemented.

The Commerce Department legally refused to adjust its model-match method related to coding for pasta's protein content in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy, the Court of International Trade ruled. Respondent La Molisana said the agency's "breakpoint" of 12.5% protein content did not reflect the market reality, offering evidence that showed the true point separating premium from regular pasta was 13.5% protein content. Judge Richard Eaton said the company's evidence, while unrebutted, was not applicable industry-wide, making it "unreliable and insufficient."

The Court of International Trade remanded a Commerce Department scope ruling that found that two-ply panels imported from China to Vietnam fell under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the scope language and the (k)(1) sources confirm the unambiguous meaning of the orders' scope, which excludes the two-ply panels. The court also upheld Commerce's rejection of Interglobal Forest's initial and rebuttal scope comments and ordered that Vietnam Finewood Co. be dismissed from the case since the company dissolved in 2019.