The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, thus barring it from receiving a separate antidumping rate, CIT said in a June 23 decision. The ruling leaves ZMC with the 92.84% China-wide rate in an antidumping administrative review on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, from China.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of the Chinese telecom gear vendor's equipment from networks funded by the Universal Service Fund under its national security supply chain rules (see 1911220064). Huawei sought the review in December. “If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as ‘a sort of junior-varsity’ State Department,” the court “would set the rule aside,” Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan said Friday for the three-judge panel. “But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse.” Huawei is “disappointed” by the ruling and is “assessing” its “options to respond,” a spokesperson emailed: The company continues “to believe the FCC acted without authority in changing” its USF rules. The FCC didn’t comment. Wiley’s Tom Johnson, former FCC general counsel, said he’s “proud to have represented” the U.S. “in this important case.” Matthew Berry, who was chief of staff to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, also praised the ruling.

The Commerce Department's recent interpretation of the finished merchandise exemption to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China led to the "same absurd results" the agency originally wanted to avoid in its previous "subassemblies test" interpretation, importer WKW North America argued in a June 21 brief in support of its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. WKW contests a scope ruling from Commerce that found that the importer's automotive waist finishers, belt moldings and outer waist belts are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders because subassemblies can't qualify for the exemption (WKW North America, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00072).

The Commerce Department has the right to select a single mandatory respondent in antidumping proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a June 21 response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. YC Rubber, Sutong and ITG Voma are appealing their unsuccessful Court of International Trade challenge of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In its brief, DOJ says that Commerce is not required by law to examine more than one company individually (YC Rubber Co. (North America) et al. v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1489).

The Commerce Department, under protest, dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping administrative review in June 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The agency recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins of mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company and Husteel Co. in the 2016-17 review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea. Husteel, the plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% antidumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate -- down from 8.14% before litigation (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Hyundai Heavy Industries' case challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to set an antidumping duty rate on power transformers from Korea. The court did not explain the June 21 petition denial. Hyundai appealed a 2019 Court of International Trade opinion sustaining Commerce's use of AFA and an opinion-less affirmation of that ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions in an antidumping case on frozen warmwater shrimp from India by switching from an application of adverse facts available to neutral facts available, the Department of Justice said in June 17 comments on the remand results (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., Bay Seafood Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00201). So far, no parties to the case have taken issue with the remand results, though Commerce submitted them “under respectful protest.” DOJ joins defendant-intervenor and petitioner in the case, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, in signing off on the remand results (see 2106040074).

Dominican aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio SRL will not be allowed to intervene in a Court of International Trade case in which it is alleged to be involved in a transshipment scheme to avoid antidumping duties, according to a June 21 order. Kingtom did not establish that its interest in continuing to sell aluminum extrusions to the importer plaintiffs without duties is an "interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action," as required by the court's rules. Kingtom also did not have a claim that shares with the main action -- a challenge of an Enforce and Protect Act" investigation -- a common question of law or fact (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

Steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret will appeal a June 16 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 21 notice of appeal. In the decision, Judge Jane Restani sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. The remand results dropped any adjustments made to the sales-below-cost test relating to a particular market situation (see 2106170026). Restani said that PMS adjustments are only allowed when calculating normal value based on constructed value, as opposed to normal value based on home market sales (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00015).