The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 granted the government's request for a remand so the Commerce Department can reconsider its use of Descartes data in calculating an ocean freight benchmark. Sending back the 2021 countervailing duty review on solar products from China, Judge Jane Restani said that on remand Commerce should consider the court's ruling in a separate case that addresses the use of Descartes data in this context, "as well the court's other rulings on the ocean freight issue."

The Commerce Department didn't give antidumping duty respondent PT. Asia Pacific Fibers a "reasonable" chance to address issues found by Commerce in the company's verification responses, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 12. Because Commerce never issued a verification report to Asia Pacific, Judge Richard Eaton said the agency must report the "methods, procedures, and results" of verification and let the company address any issues.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that imported industrial shredders that use blades to break up material carry no duties because they are classifiable as crushing and grinding machines.

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 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to disregard Indonesian crude palm oil prices when it calculated antidumping duty respondent Wilmar's normal value, which was based off an export levy set by the Indonesian government. In a Nov. 21 opinion made public Dec. 12, Judge Richard Eaton said if the agency sticks with the particular market situation adjustment in the AD investigation on Indonesian biodiesel, it must explain why doing so doesn't lead to a double remedy, since Commerce countervailed the export levy in the related countervailing duty investigation.

The Commerce Department illegally used just one respondent in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India covering entries in 2018-19, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 8. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. "is directly on point" in this case, because Commerce only reviewed exporter Chandan Steel Limited in a situation where multiple other companies exported the subject merchandise.

The Commerce Department reverted to a previously used land benchmark calculation for its 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The court previously had sent back the land benchmark formula for violating the scope of an earlier remand order, telling Commerce to use the calculation from its first remand, in which the agency used a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis (CBRE) land report to set the benchmark (see 2311170034) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply to countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. adverse facts available related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. In Dec. 6 remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it tried to verify Ancientree's submissions regarding its customers' non-use of the EBCP but was unable to verify key information regarding non-use, leading to the continued AFA rate for the exporter (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00110).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafoods' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the court ruled Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif said that the agency's decision, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), doesn't constitute an "embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Dec. 7 oral arguments sharply questioned importer Rimco's arguments that it didn't need to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to its adverse facts available rate administratively at the Commerce Department before challenging it in court (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).