The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's finding in an administrative review on hot-rolled steel flat products that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Leonard Stark said that while petitioner U.S. Steel can "point to several instances in the record where BlueScope" submitted responses that "could fairly be read to contradict its overall narrative" regarding how it charged its affiliated importer, it's ultimately not enough to "render the agency's decision unreasonable or not based on substantial evidence."

The Court of International Trade on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's use of the invoice date as the date of sale instead of the contract date for both respondents, Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji, was properly supported. The judge said evidence from past reviews supports using the invoice date. She said terms of the contract permitted deviation in a material term and the quantities listed on the invoice were "materially different from those in the contract."

The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to countervail exporter KG Dongbu's three debt-to-equity swaps after initially declining to countervail them in the preceding three countervailing duty reviews on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce can't reverse its countervailability decisions without new information. The judge also remanded Commerce's decision to pass-through benefits from the three debt-to-equity restructurings to KG Dongbu after its ownership changed between the prior three and present reviews, along with the agency's calculation of the company's creditworthiness benchmark and unequityworthy discount rate.

The Court of International Trade in a March 11 decision made public April 1 sent back the Commerce Department's use of a simple average of a zero percent and an adverse facts available antidumping rate to set the separate AD rate in the 2016-17 review of the order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton said that because Commerce had Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co.'s aggregate U.S. sales information, the lack of transaction-specific U.S. sales data for the exporter didn't support departing from the expected method, which requires a weighted average of the zero and AFA rates.

The Court of International Trade on April 1 lifted a temporary ban on nine fish types from New Zealand after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration made new comparability findings regarding the wildlife protections on New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries. The ban's lifting, which went unopposed by all parties, came after NOAA said that New Zealand established that its fisheries satisfy the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The suit was brought by conservation groups seeking to protect the Maui dolphin.

The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public March 21 sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's decision to start the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the investigation. However, the judge sent back the agency's finding that the data relied on "accurately reflected industry support, including whether finishing operations were counted twice," in light of evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, led by Tenaris Bay City.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.

The Court of International Trade on March 18 said the U.S. government's eight-year delay in demanding surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. pay a customs bond for Chinese garlic entries was "unreasonable and a breach of contract." Judge Stephen Vaden said that while the six-year statute of limitations runs from the date CBP issues a bill and not the liquidation date, the eight-year delay in issuing the bill violated the "reasonable time requirement," which is an implied contractual term. Vaden also held that Aegis' "impairment of suretyship" defense failed since the surety could have made a claim with its insurer.

The Court of International Trade on March 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results excluding importer Crane Resistoflex's ductile iron lap joint flanges from the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu previously remanded the scope ruling on the grounds that it wasn't in a form that could be sustained by the court. Commerce said a Federal Register notice will be published stating that Crane's flanges are outside the order's scope.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7 sustained CBP's classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products used in hay baling machines under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 as "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10%, instead of the importer's subheading of 8433.90.50, as "parts" of harvesting machinery. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the net wraps are not "parts" as defined by the HTS since the wraps have "additional function outside the machine." The court added that a "consumable" item, "like bullets in a gun," isn't solely meant for use within the machine "simply because it is used exclusively by the machine."