Mark Allen Barnett

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce’s third remand results in an expedited countervailing duty review of softwood lumber products from Canada. The sole remaining dispute involved Commerce’s refusal to attribute subsidies received by unaffiliated Canadian lumber suppliers to respondent companies D&G and Portbec when calculating their subsidy rate. The U.S. Court of International Trade remanded the results, directing Commerce to reconsider its subsidy calculations and to evaluate the documentation the companies submitted on remand. The court concluded that Commerce had not adequately addressed the companies’ evidence or explained its decision under the applicable statutory framework.

business & regulatory

The case involves SeAH Steel VINA Corporation challenging three parallel determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce that found circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on circular welded steel pipe products exported from Vietnam using hot-rolled steel from Korea, India, or China. The U.S. Court of International Trade consolidated review of the Korea, India, and China final determinations. The court remanded all three determinations to Commerce for reconsideration or further explanation. The core reasoning centered on Commerce's insufficient identification and evidentiary support for statutory factors under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1), including its handling of patterns of trade and the time periods selected for analyzing changes in import volumes.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the proper tariff classification under the HTSUS of radial, web, and chordal segments imported by Honeywell International, Inc., for use in manufacturing aircraft brake components. Honeywell sought duty-free treatment as parts of aircraft undercarriages under subheading 8803.20.00, while the government maintained that the segments should be classified as other made-up articles under subheading 6307.90.98 at a seven percent duty rate. The court had initially ruled in Honeywell's favor but, on the government's motion for rehearing, granted reconsideration and held that the segments do not qualify as aircraft parts because they undergo extensive further processing rather than being machined into finished components. The court therefore reclassified the imports under heading 6307 and entered judgment accordingly.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the proper tariff classification under the HTSUS of radial, web, and chordal segments imported by Honeywell International, Inc., for use in manufacturing aircraft brake components. Honeywell sought duty-free treatment as parts of aircraft undercarriages under subheading 8803.20.00, while the government maintained that the segments should be classified as other made-up articles under subheading 6307.90.98 at a seven percent duty rate. The court had initially ruled in Honeywell's favor but, on the government's motion for rehearing, granted reconsideration and held that the segments do not qualify as aircraft parts because they undergo extensive further processing rather than being machined into finished components. The court therefore reclassified the imports under heading 6307 and entered judgment accordingly.

business & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by German steel manufacturer BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the 2022 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. BGH contested Commerce’s inclusion of certain forged steel products, including custom military blocks, in home market sales data used to calculate normal value for determining dumping margins. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s determination, holding that BGH failed to properly raise its arguments about model-matching criteria and product comparability during the administrative proceeding, thereby not exhausting its administrative remedies. The court found that Commerce reasonably adhered to its practice of addressing such issues early in proceedings and declined to consider BGH’s belated claims on the merits.

business & regulatory

This case involved Spanish companies Compañia Valenciana De Aluminio Baux and Bancolor Baux challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results from an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from Spain. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce erred by finding only one level of trade in the home market and denying a level of trade adjustment under 19 C.F.R. § 351.412(c)(2), claiming the decision lacked substantial evidence and was contrary to law. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's Final Results. The court reasoned that substantial evidence supported Commerce's determination of a single level of trade after evaluating selling functions and price adjustments, that plaintiffs bore and failed to meet the burden of proving entitlement to any further adjustment, and that Commerce properly avoided double-counting adjustments under the regulations.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Italian pasta producer Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of countervailing duties on pasta imports from Italy for 2021. The company contested Commerce's use of total adverse facts available to set its subsidy rate after finding deficiencies in affiliate reporting, the early termination of verification, and whether the resulting rate violated the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The court remanded in part, directing Commerce to reconsider or further explain its inclusion in the adverse facts available rate of subsidy programs that had been verified as unused during the period of review. It sustained the agency's determinations on all other challenged aspects, including the decision to apply adverse facts available and the handling of previously terminated programs.

business & regulatory

The case concerned Edsal Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'s challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's affirmative final determination in a less-than-fair-value (antidumping) investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. Commerce had selected two Thai producers as mandatory respondents, found no viable home or third-country market, and calculated constructed value using the companies' reported costs of production along with profit and selling expenses derived from financial statements. The Court of International Trade sustained the determination, holding that Commerce's reliance on the verified cost data and its choice of financial statements were supported by substantial evidence and explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The court rejected Edsal's arguments regarding discrepancies in inventory schedules, direct materials reporting, and the need for cost adjustments as unsupported speculation.

business & regulatory

The case involved Jindal Poly Films challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2021 countervailing duty administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film from India. Commerce had denied Jindal's untimely extension request for submitting an affiliate questionnaire response and then applied total adverse facts available due to the missing information. The court remanded the final results to Commerce for reconsideration. The core reasoning was that Commerce abused its discretion by prioritizing finality over accuracy when denying the extension early in the proceeding, as the agency had not yet expended significant resources on the gap and failed to consider all relevant information.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Edsal Manufacturing Co. challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final negative determination in a less-than-fair-value investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Commerce had selected Triune Technofab Private Limited as the mandatory respondent and calculated normal value using constructed value based on surrogate financial statements, preferring those of TMTE Metal Tech Private Limited over Mekins Industries Private Limited due to the presence of countervailable subsidies in the latter. The court sustained Commerce’s determination, finding that the agency reasonably explained its selection among the statements and that Edsal’s arguments for using or averaging the Mekins statements lacked merit under the applicable statute and precedents.

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber products. Certain producers excluded from the duty order with de minimis rates sought an order requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue pre-liquidation refunds of cash deposits on their entries. The court denied the motion to clarify or correct a prior opinion to impose such an obligation, ruling that the prior orders contained no clerical error or unintended omission under USCIT Rules 60(a) or 60(b)(5). The decision rested on the determination that refunds are discretionary for CBP, the process would impose excessive administrative burdens given the volume of entries and the ACE system, and no legal requirement compelled pre-liquidation action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Nucor Corporation to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2018 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Korea, where Commerce calculated a de minimis subsidy rate for POSCO. The dispute centered on Commerce's decisions not to investigate alleged off-peak electricity provision for less than adequate remuneration and not to attribute subsidies from POSCO's affiliate Plantec to POSCO based on cross-ownership rules. After multiple remands, the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's third remand results. The court found that Commerce's determinations were consistent with statutory requirements and supported by substantial evidence, including that the electricity tariff schedule aligned with market principles and that POSCO did not control Plantec's assets during the period of review.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the proper tariff classification of certain radial, web, and chordal segments imported by Honeywell International, Inc., which are components used in aircraft brake systems. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had liquidated the imports under HTSUS subheading 6307.90.98 as other made-up articles subject to a seven percent duty, prompting Honeywell to file protests that were denied. The Court of International Trade granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, holding that the segments are properly classified under the duty-free subheading 8803.20.00 as parts of aircraft undercarriages. The court reasoned that, under the General Rules of Interpretation, heading 8803 provides a more specific description applicable to the goods than the general basket provision in heading 6307.

business & regulatorytaxes

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the second administrative review of an antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, covering April 2021 to March 2022. Plaintiff Ancientree challenged Commerce’s rejection of its claim that the agency should have increased its U.S. sales price to account for export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty order, arguing the adjustment was required by statute. The court sustained Commerce’s final results, holding that Ancientree failed to raise the issue in its administrative case brief as required by regulation and did not qualify for any exception to the exhaustion doctrine. The court found no basis to excuse the untimely ministerial error allegation or to override the administrative exhaustion requirement.

business & regulatory