This case concerns a challenge by Turkish producer Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s calculation of antidumping duties on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, specifically Commerce’s refusal to apply a duty drawback adjustment under Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime for multiple Inward Processing Certificates beyond one closed certificate. After three remands addressing the proper allocation of the adjustment under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B), the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s third remand results, which imposed duties at 2.14 percent. The court upheld Commerce’s removal of Assan’s June 20 submission as untimely under 19 C.F.R. § 351.301, its determination that the record lacked sufficient verified information to calculate an adjustment for the additional certificate, and its cancellation of verification as within agency discretion. These rulings rested on the requirements that factual submissions meet regulatory deadlines and that drawback eligibility be supported by adequate record evidence linking imports and exports.
This case concerned the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 2020–2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, specifically Commerce’s valuation of coal as a production input for Chinese producers Fufeng and Meihua. After an earlier remand, Commerce reexamined the issue in its Second Remand Results and determined that HTS subheading 2701.19 was the correct category for valuing Fufeng’s coal, which produced a revised dumping margin of zero percent for Fufeng and, by extension, a zero percent separate rate for Meihua. Fufeng and Meihua notified the court that they supported the revised results, and the government asked the court to sustain them. The Court of International Trade therefore sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results under USCIT Rule 56.2, ending the litigation.
In this case, plaintiff Saha Thai Steel Pipe challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce’s redetermination of antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the 2018–2019 review period, following an earlier court remand. Defendant-intervenor Wheatland Tube argued that Commerce should apply adverse facts available because Saha Thai had allegedly misreported sales of dual-stenciled pipe, citing recent decisions that it claimed undermined the prior remand order. The court sustained Commerce’s remand results, holding that the intervening decisions did not alter the underlying facts or require further remand. It found that Commerce had properly reopened the record under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d), allowed Saha Thai to submit complete sales data, and calculated the dumping margin based on that verified information, leaving no gap in the record that would justify adverse inferences.
This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce’s eighth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. Chinese producers Fufeng and Meihua challenged Commerce’s calculation of normal value, specifically its decision to value the companies’ energy coal inputs directly by adding an estimated cost rather than using surrogate data, and its selection of HTS subheading 2701.12.9000 to classify the coal. On remand from a prior decision, the Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s direct valuation method because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate prejudicial error. However, the court remanded again for Commerce to reconsider the proper HTS subheading, directing it to address record evidence that the coal had a calorific value below 5,800 kcal/kg and to properly apply Note 2 of the relevant tariff chapter when choosing between competing subheadings 2701.12.9000 and 2701.19.
The case involved challenges by Wabtec Corporation and Strato, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on freight rail couplers and parts from China, following a prior court remand of the International Trade Commission’s injury finding. The U.S. Court of International Trade upheld Commerce’s conclusion that the investigations were not an improper relitigation of an earlier proceeding and that attached couplers are not substantially transformed into a different class of merchandise, findings supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court remanded the determinations in part, however, because Commerce had failed to address arguments that the petitioners’ theory of injury required excluding attached couplers from the scope of the orders. Commerce possesses authority to modify scope language when the petition is overly broad, and the court directed it to reconsider or further explain whether attached couplers should be excluded.
This case before the U.S. Court of International Trade concerned a challenge to the Department of Commerce’s treatment of accrued interest expenses from unpaid duties in an antidumping proceeding, specifically whether those expenses should be reclassified as U.S. indirect selling expenses and deducted from constructed export price. After Commerce issued final results on remand, defendant-intervenors Appvion LLC and Domtar Corp. initially filed objections to the results. Those objections were withdrawn following the court’s October 2025 decision in the related case Domtar Corp. v. United States, which upheld Commerce’s determination that the interest expenses are not indirect selling expenses as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. All parties subsequently agreed that the remand results should be sustained. The court therefore ordered Commerce’s remand results sustained under Rule 56.2.