The Commerce Department properly used the Turkish lira to value exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's home-market sales as part of the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 14 opinion. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's use of the lira didn't violate its past practice or the established reasons underlying this practice.

The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 12 opinion dismissed two claims in an antidumping duty review case, saying success on the arguments would not lead to a changed dumping margin for respondents HiSteel Co. and Dong-a-Steel Co. The claims challenged the Commerce Department's use of the transactions disregarded rule applied to HiSteel's reported costs of slitting services and its adjustment of HiSteel's reported scrap offset. Judge Gary Katzmann said HiSteel's alleged injuries are more "conjectural or hypothetical" than "actual or imminent."

The Commerce department revised the antidumping margin for Italian steel exporter Officine Tecnosider to zero percent in its Sept. 11 remand results. The department reached its revised rate using the quarterly cost of production methodology instead of its standard annual analysis (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

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 Commerce Department can't use information it knows to be incorrect, exporter Nagase said in its Sept. 8 remand comments to the Court of International Trade. In its Aug. 9 remand redetermination (see 2308100028) covering the 2018-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan, Commerce knew that the constructed export price value sales were incorrect but used those values anyway despite correct information on the record, Nagase said. The court can't sustain a determination created using knowingly false information, Nagase said, arguing for another remand (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 ordered parties to answer whether there are any outstanding questions of fact in a customs spat on GoPro Hero camera housings. Judge Timothy Reif wants the issue resolved to see if the case is "ripe for summary judgment."

The government "completely" misinterpreted industry abstracts it relied on justify the Commerce Department's classification of backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs as "sheets" and not "film" for Risen Energy's surrogate values in an antidumping duty review on solar cells from China, Risen argued in a Sept. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

No record evidence supports the Commerce Department's finding that imports of plywood from Vietnam circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hardwood plywood products from China, Vietnamese producer and exporter Greatriver Wood said in a Sept. 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Greatriver Wood v. U.S., CIT # 23-00155).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion rejected a U.S. motion to dismiss cases from three importers challenging the Commerce Department's denial of their Section 233 steel tariff exclusion requests. The government said the cases should be tossed since they concern entries that already had been finally liquidated, but Judge M. Miller Baker held that it's possible for the court to order liquidation in Administrative Procedure Act cases brought under Section 1581(i), even if liquidation is final.