The Commerce Department violated the law when it initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation into quartz surface products from India since it didn't have the requisite industry support, importer M S International told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Dec. 20 opening brief. Urging the appellate court to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that found that Commerce legally interpreted what constitutes a "producer" of QSPs, MSI argued that Commerce erred by excluding fabricators from the industry support calculation (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).

Sufficient evidence exists to back the Commerce Department's contentions on a countervailing duty review of wood mouldings and millwork products from China, both the Department of Justice and CVD petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers said in a pair of reply briefs. The defendant and defendant-intervenor pushed the court to accept Commerce's arguments that it properly countervailed respondent Yinfeng's purchases of acrylic polymer and alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with its benchmarks for the provision of plywood and sawn wood for less than adequate remuneration and land-use rights for LTAR (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00088).

The Commerce Department didn't follow the Court of International Trade's instructions when it continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the high China-wide rate, the consolidated plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export, argued in a Dec. 29 brief. The plaintiffs blasted Commerce's justification for the move -- that it had a limited record for calculating the separate rate respondents' actual rates -- since "this deficiency is of Commerce's own making" (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained a remand redetermination from the Commerce Department that reverses the outcome of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, which had resulted in a CV duty order in 2020, but post-remand finds no countervailable subsidization.

The Court of International Trade erred when it said that there was no legal authority for expedited countervailing duty reviews, appellants told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in their opening brief. The appellants, led by the Canadian government, argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department in finding that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

Importer Gogo International evaded antidumping duties on diamond sawblades and parts from China, CBP found in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation determination. CBP determined that substantial evidence existed revealing that Gogo was transshipping the sawblades through Canada, primarily because Gogo and one of its affiliates did not submit any evidence contradicting this claim.

Building a rail line in Canada to take advantage of an exception to the Jones Act is "ordinarily permissible" under the law, logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings said in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The Supreme Court of the U.S. said that liability cannot be imposed just because an individual or entity set up a transaction to avoid liability. Due to this holding, even if two shipping companies set up a Canadian rail line to avoid Jones Act penalties, it cannot then be held liable under the Jones Act, the brief said (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The Commerce Department didn't discredit its position on its ability to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a recent countervailing duty review, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 brief. Responding to allegations from the lead plaintiff in a case over a CVD review, DOJ said that Commerce was able to verify nonuse -- despite key information from the Chinese government -- in a separate review due to the low number of the respondents' U.S. customers -- something that is not true of the review at issue.

The Commerce Department failed to justify its reliance on a third-country company's financial statements for calculating constructed value in an antidumping duty review despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that called that reliance into question, the Court of International Trade said. Remanding Commerce's finding for the third time in a Dec. 22 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce did not adequately distinguish the review from a case in which the company's financial statements were found to be unsuitable since there was evidence of a subsidy.

The Commerce Department must reconsider whether antidumping duty respondent Power Steel paid Section 232 duties on all of its U.S. sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 23 opinion. Commerce, in an antidumping duty review, deducted Section 232 duties from all of Power Steel's U.S. sales when calculating export price. In her remand, Judge Jane Restani said sales invoices submitted by Power Steel may show it didn't pay Section 232 duties for some of its U.S. sales, so Commerce must take those into effect.