Gary S. Katzmann

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

In Domtar Corp. v. United States, a U.S. producer of thermal paper challenged the Department of Commerce’s final results in its 2021–2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on thermal paper from Germany. The plaintiff argued that interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties owed by German producer Koehler Paper SE from a prior order should be treated as an indirect selling expense in calculating the cost of production, which would have increased the dumping margin. The U.S. Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained Commerce’s determination. The court held that the interest was incurred in connection with past unpaid duties under a separate order, not in selling subject merchandise during the period of review, and therefore did not qualify as an indirect selling expense under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.402(b). Commerce’s conclusion was found to be supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a challenge by CS Wind Malaysia and its parent company to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the 2021–2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia. The plaintiffs argued that Commerce erred by denying an adjustment to the cost of production to reflect reduced output before a plant shutdown and by selecting two Malaysian steel-pipe producers as surrogates to calculate the company’s profit rate. The Court of International Trade denied the motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained Commerce’s determinations in full. The court found that Commerce reasonably concluded the shutdown did not produce the kind of distortion requiring an adjustment and that the chosen surrogates, though imperfect, constituted the best available information on the record for estimating profit experience in Malaysia. Both decisions were therefore supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by Turkish steel producer Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in a 2021 countervailing duty administrative review on imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Commerce had determined that Kaptan received countervailable subsidies through several Turkish government programs, including a foreign exchange tax exemption, a rent-free lease for a subsidiary, and social security benefits under Laws 4447 and 27256, and Kaptan contested the agency’s findings on specificity, benchmark calculations, and the use of adverse facts available. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained in part and remanded in part, upholding Commerce’s determination on benefits under Law 4447 while ordering further explanation or reconsideration on the other three issues. The court reasoned that Commerce’s specificity finding and benchmark selection lacked adequate support or response to Kaptan’s arguments, that adverse facts available could not properly rest on evidence the agency had rejected under its own regulations, and that Kaptan’s objections to the Law 4447 determination were unexhausted or waived.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by Turkish rebar producer Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 2023 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. The dispute focused on two issues: whether an exemption from Turkey’s Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax (BITT) on foreign exchange transactions constituted a countervailable subsidy due to specificity, and whether Commerce properly selected a Colliers International report over a Cushman & Wakefield report as the benchmark to value a rent-free land lease held by Kaptan’s affiliate. After the court remanded the matter for further explanation in 2024, Commerce determined on remand that the BITT exemption was not specific (and thus not countervailable) and provided additional justification for using the Colliers report. The court sustained both determinations, finding that Commerce’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that it had adequately addressed concerns about de jure versus de facto specificity analysis as well as the relative reliability, contemporaneity, and independence of the two valuation reports.

business & regulatorytaxes

In Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff, an importer of marijuana-processing equipment, alleged that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) retaliated against its prior litigation victory by denying entry to two Canadian executives and citing federal drug-trafficking statutes. Eteros sought a declaratory judgment clarifying that lawful importation of such equipment under 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1) does not violate related drug laws and barring CBP from contrary actions, invoking the Court of International Trade’s residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(D). The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims concerned immigration and entry decisions outside the statute’s scope rather than customs enforcement. It further found no basis for ancillary jurisdiction to reopen or enforce the prior Eteros I judgment, as CBP had already complied by releasing the merchandise.

immigrationcriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In CME Acquisitions, LLC v. United States, a U.S. importer challenged the Department of Commerce’s final results in the 2021–22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip from Taiwan. Commerce assigned two mandatory respondents an adverse facts available rate of 21.10 percent after they failed to respond to questionnaires, then applied that same rate to non-selected companies, including the plaintiff, by averaging the mandatory respondents’ rates under the “expected method.” The U.S. Court of International Trade denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record, concluding that Commerce’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law because the plaintiff did not provide evidence showing the rate was not reasonably reflective of non-selected companies’ potential dumping margins and had received adequate notice and opportunity to submit such evidence.

business & regulatory

The case concerns Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC’s challenge in the U.S. Court of International Trade to a U.S. Department of Commerce antidumping duty order on truck and bus tires from Thailand, under which Bridgestone received a 48.39% duty rate based on total adverse facts available after Commerce found its submitted data unverifiable during verification. Bridgestone moved to complete the administrative record by adding three documents that Commerce had rejected, while the Government moved to consolidate the case with a separate challenge by another party to the same final determination. The court granted the motion to complete the record and denied consolidation without prejudice to renewal. It reasoned that Bridgestone had shown a reasonable basis to believe the record was incomplete under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i), warranting inclusion of the documents, but that the two cases lacked presently identifiable common questions of law or fact and that consolidation would not serve judicial economy at this stage.

business & regulatory

The case concerns Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC’s challenge in the U.S. Court of International Trade to a U.S. Department of Commerce antidumping duty order on truck and bus tires from Thailand, under which Bridgestone received a 48.39% duty rate based on total adverse facts available after Commerce found its submitted data unverifiable during verification. Bridgestone moved to complete the administrative record by adding three documents that Commerce had rejected, while the Government moved to consolidate the case with a separate challenge by another party to the same final determination. The court granted the motion to complete the record and denied consolidation without prejudice to renewal. It reasoned that Bridgestone had shown a reasonable basis to believe the record was incomplete under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i), warranting inclusion of the documents, but that the two cases lacked presently identifiable common questions of law or fact and that consolidation would not serve judicial economy at this stage.

business & regulatory

The case involves a challenge by a Turkish aluminum producer (Assan) and a U.S. industry group (the Aluminum Association) to the Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty determination on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, specifically Commerce’s handling of duty-drawback adjustments tied to the Turkish government’s Inward Processing Certificate system. After two prior remands, the U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s Second Remand Results and again remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court held that Commerce failed to address two significant arguments raised by the Aluminum Association during the remand process, even though it had quoted those arguments in its results. Because an agency must adequately explain its decisions when faced with substantive objections from interested parties, the court concluded that the remand proceeding was incomplete and required a third remand for Commerce to respond.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether Presidential Proclamation 10101 validly imposed safeguard duties on certain solar panel imports, and whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should be allowed to reliquidate entries it had already processed in violation of a court-ordered suspension of liquidation during the litigation. Following a Federal Circuit mandate upholding the proclamation as valid, the U.S. Court of International Trade entered judgment for the government defendants. The court denied the government’s request to order reliquidation of the inadvertently liquidated entries, holding that liquidation is statutorily final and conclusive, and that CBP’s admitted violations of the suspension order did not warrant equitable relief absent a stronger showing of future compliance with court orders and statutory requirements. The court therefore dissolved the suspension order without authorizing any corrective reliquidations.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Kumar Industries v. United States, the U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed an Indian glycine producer’s challenge to the Department of Commerce’s final results in the 2021–22 antidumping duty administrative review. Commerce had selected Kumar as a mandatory respondent, found prior evidence of affiliation with two other companies, and issued questionnaires requesting information and documentation to support Kumar’s claim of non-affiliation during the period of review. When Kumar failed to provide adequate supporting information, Commerce determined that necessary data was missing from the record, that Kumar had withheld information and impeded the proceeding, and that it had not acted to the best of its ability; Commerce therefore applied adverse facts available and assigned the highest calculated margin. The court denied Kumar’s motion for judgment on the agency record and sustained the Final Results, concluding that Commerce’s affiliation findings, application of adverse facts available, and margin calculations (including adjustments to reported U.S. duties for certain transactions) were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

The U.S. Court of International Trade case involves the United States seeking to recover more than $250 million in unpaid antidumping duties and interest from two affiliated German producers of thermal paper, Koehler Oberkirch GmbH and Koehler Paper SE, under 28 U.S.C. § 1582. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming insufficient service of process on both and lack of personal jurisdiction over Koehler Paper. The court denied the motion in full. It held that prior alternative service through U.S. counsel was valid and that Koehler Paper, as a successor entity that allegedly assumed its predecessor’s liabilities through a corporate spin-off, inherited the predecessor’s jurisdictional contacts with the United States, satisfying due process. The court found these contacts sufficiently related to the duty-recovery claim to support jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, a company that imports and distributes agricultural machinery, including equipment for cannabis and hemp processing, sued for a declaratory judgment that its importation of certain cannabis-related goods from Canada does not violate federal narcotics trafficking laws under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 1907; it also sought to bar U.S. Customs and Border Protection from using those laws to deny entry to two of its Canadian corporate officers. Plaintiff moved to expedite the briefing schedule under USCIT Rule 3(g)(5), citing ongoing economic harms from the officers’ exclusion. The Court of International Trade denied the motion. Applying the three-part “good cause” test from Ontario Forest Industries Ass’n v. United States, the court found that plaintiff had not shown that delay would render the case moot, cause extraordinary hardship beyond typical litigation burdens, or implicate a public interest strong enough to justify priority over other pending cases.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Welfare Institute alleging that the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and Homeland Security, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service and their officials, had failed to implement the import provisions of the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act aimed at protecting foreign marine mammals such as the vaquita and Māui dolphin. The parties reached a Stipulated Settlement Agreement addressing implementation deadlines and filed a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under USCIT Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the filing contained a clerical omission of a “so-ordered” signature line. The court granted the parties’ motion under Rule 60(a) to correct that ministerial error, issued the dismissal order, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement’s non-monetary terms. The ruling rested on the finding that the omission was a mechanical mistake that caused no prejudice because all parties jointly sought the correction.

environmentprocedurefederal power