The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on solar products from China. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's decision not to adjust exporter Trina Solar Co.'s U.S. price by the amount of six programs the agency countervailed in the most recent accompanying countervailing duty review. Kelly found that Commerce failed to explain its decision that the six programs weren't export contingent.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. Judge Jane Restani said jurisprudence from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test doesn't compel the revocation of the AD order for exporter Resolute FP Canada. The judge held that since neither court has rejected the standard use of the test, Commerce wasn't required to revert Resolute's dumping margin to zero in the underlying investigation.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's inclusion of the alleged subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in exporter Risen Energy Co.'s countervailing duty margin in the 2020 review of the order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Jane Restani said that while there is a gap in the record due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate, Risen failed to fill the gap because it submitted only nonuse certificates from all but one of its customers. However, the judge said it's unreasonable for Commerce to not prorate Risen's CVD rate for the EBCP based on all the sales the company was able to verify didn't benefit from the EBCP.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against respondent Unicatch Industrial Co. in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in submitting cost reconciliation information. The court also said the 78.17% petition rate was realistic as the AFA rate since two sales from Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, the other respondent, exceeded this rate. Lastly, the court said Commerce properly used the expected method in setting the average rate for non-reviewed respondents at 35.3%.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on narrow woven ribbons from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's decision on remand to drop the subsidy rate pertaining to exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The judge also said the agency properly countervailed the Chinese government's provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda, two ribbon inputs, for less than adequate remuneration. The court sustained Commerce's use of adverse facts available related to these two programs due to the Chinese government's failure to respond to the best of its ability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 13 again said President Donald Trump didn't violate the Trade Act of 1974 when he revoked a Section 201 tariff on bifacial solar panels. The court previously sustained the move in a November 2023 decision (see 2311130031). Partially granting a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel reconsideration, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark conducted a de novo review of the president's interpretation of the applicable statute allowing for the tariff action instead of reviewing whether the interpretation was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute. However, the panel said that the case isn't an "appropriate vehicle" for overruling the court's "clear misconstruction" standard of review for presidential decisions under the Trade Act.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping case and secure an injunction on its entries. Judge Jane Restani said the case presents a "common situation," whereby the court can't provide Habas the relief it seeks because its entries have liquidated, despite the company's intent to protest the liquidation.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction on a petition to ban imports of cocoa from Ivory Coast. Judge Claire Kelly said the group hasn't shown that CBP's failure to respond to the petition "harmed a core business or diminished any asset." Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the judge said resources spent trying to compel the agency to act were expenses for advocacy, which can't establish standing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 held that it's not unreasonable for the Commerce Department to set the all-others rate for non-individually examined respondents in an antidumping proceeding by using only total adverse facts available rates assigned to the mandatory respondents. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said there's no burden on Commerce to show that using only AFA is reasonable, finding instead that the burden is on the agency to "justify a departure from the expected method," not to "justify its use." Judge Timothy Dyk filed a partial dissent, finding that just because the use of AFA is "expected" doesn't make it "reasonable." As a result, Dyk said Commerce must show that the sole use of AFA in setting the all-others rate is reasonable.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision to cumulate hot-rolled steel imports from Australia with other countries' goods when conducting a five-year sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected exporter BlueScope Steel's claim that the ITC had established a past practice of considering U.S. investments by foreign producers in cumulation analyses. The court held that the cumulation decision was backed by substantial evidence.