The case concerned AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc.'s challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2021–2023 administrative review of the antidumping duty order and the 2021–2022 review of the countervailing duty order on certain quartz surface products from China. AM Stone, an importer, contested Commerce's determination that exporters like Universal Quartz remained ineligible to certify their Malaysian-processed products as not containing Chinese-origin quartz slab, based on prior scope rulings that applied adverse facts available to non-cooperating parties and the lack of sufficient rebuttal information. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's Final Results. The court reasoned that Commerce did not apply adverse facts available to AM Stone in the current reviews, properly relied on the prior presumption from the Final Scope Ruling, adequately explained its decisions not to calculate separate assessment rates or allow certification eligibility without additional data, and committed no legal error.
In Aloha Pencil Company, LLC v. United States, the plaintiff challenged the Department of Commerce's decision to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, after the agency determined that Aloha Pencil lacked standing as a domestic interested party and that there were no reviewable entries. The Government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff had not established Article III standing. The Court of International Trade granted the motion, holding that the complaint contained no factual allegations supporting the claim that Aloha Pencil was a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler of the domestic like product, and thus failed to allege any injury-in-fact. The court noted that the plaintiff had been given notice of the deficiency but did not amend its pleadings or request further leave to do so. The case was dismissed without addressing the merits of the underlying agency action.
In this case from the U.S. Court of International Trade, plaintiff Fontaine Inc. sought relief from a final judgment under USCIT Rule 60(b)(5) and (6), requesting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection refund countervailing duty cash deposits on softwood lumber imports from Canada before liquidation, following a court-ordered reduction of its duty rate to de minimis. The court had previously sustained amended final results from the Department of Commerce's expedited review that lowered Fontaine's rate. Defendant United States and defendant-intervenor opposed the motion. The court denied the motion, holding that Fontaine failed to demonstrate the judgment was no longer equitable or that extraordinary circumstances existed, as any delay in refunds through normal liquidation procedures was offset by accruing interest and did not justify pre-liquidation refunds.
The case involved Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy, specifically Commerce's use of total adverse facts available, termination of verification, and the resulting subsidy rate. The court had previously upheld Commerce's application of total AFA and related decisions but remanded for further explanation on the inclusion of certain subsidy programs verified as unused during the period of review. On remand, Commerce clarified that only one such program affected the calculation and that its exclusion would not change the total rate due to the method for determining benefits under income tax programs, while also noting the limited relevance of non-use findings given unreported affiliates. Gentile submitted no comments on the remand results, and the court sustained them as compliant with its order and supported by substantial evidence.
This case concerned challenges by several tire importers to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s second administrative review of an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. After the Federal Circuit remanded the matter, Commerce conducted three redeterminations addressing mandatory respondent selection and separate-rate eligibility for companies in a non-market economy. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s third remand results. The court found that Commerce reasonably applied the non-market economy presumption of government control, properly selected respondents based on import volume, and correctly granted or denied separate rates based on the record evidence. These agency actions were held to be supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.
The case involved Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA, LLC challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce’s full or partial denials of its requests to exclude certain aluminum rods and steel coils from section 232 tariffs, along with the denial of a request to add an importer of record for a partially granted exclusion. The Court of International Trade sustained the agency’s actions in full. The court reasoned that presidential proclamations issued in February 2025 explicitly revoked Commerce’s authority to consider or grant section 232 exclusions, leaving the agency without power to approve the requests and making its denials lawful.