The Court of International Trade on April 22 sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by lumber suppliers to respondents in an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber. Judge Mark Barnett said that if Commerce continues to find that the respondents are the producers of the subject lumber, the agency must reconsider its decision to require an upstream subsidy allegation for lumber purchases within the class of covered merchandise.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 19 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite finding that the company failed to establish the amount and nature of the offset.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 14 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from India. In a letter to the parties, Judge M. Miller Baker said he wants to publish a public version of the opinion March 19. U.S. manufacturer Daikin America brought the suit to contest Commerce's decision to accept respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals' method for reporting its U.S. movement expenses (see 2205120026). Daikin said that Gujarat Fluorochemicals ignored Commerce's instructions to report its sales expenses on a transaction-specific basis, warranting adverse facts available, and that the agency illegally granted a constructed export price offset for the respondent (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted the motion from a group of Canadian exporters to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling that overturned an expedited review that excluded them from the duties. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective back to August 2021, when the companies were first subjected to the order.

The Court of International Trade shouldn't reinstate the Commerce Department's exclusion of four Canadian lumber exporters as part of the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada, the CVD petitioner said in an Oct. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner, the committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, said that the four exporters' "mere assertions" that changed circumstances exist, warranting the retroactive exclusion of the companies, is not enough (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

Four Canadian lumber exporters, along with their cross-owned affiliates, referred to as the "Originally Excluded Parties," asked the Court of International Trade to relieve them from the effects of a court order reinstating the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The originally excluded parties said the order was based on an earlier judgment, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, concerning the legal ground for conducting expedited CVD reviews, meaning that the trade court should restore "the status quo ante that existed prior" to the order for the remainder of the case (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

Parties in a suit over the Commerce Department's expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber disagreed on whether the Court of International Trade should tell Commerce to exclude four Canadian exporters from the CVD order following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying the agency has the authority to conduct the review. In a joint status report filed Aug. 7, the Canadian parties in the case, which include the Canadian government, said the court should tell Commerce to exclude the companies and tell CBP to stop collecting CVD cash deposits, while the petitioner said a joint status report is not the correct venue for the request (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).

The United States will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

The Court of International Trade erred when it said that there was no legal authority for expedited countervailing duty reviews, appellants told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in their opening brief. The appellants, led by the Canadian government, argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department in finding that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

Consolidated plaintiff, defendant-intervenor and Canadian lumber company Fontaine will appeal an August Court of International Trade opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it said in an Oct. 15 notice of appeal. The decision vacated a Commerce Department regulation establishing expedited reviews for countervailing duty investigations (see 2108190002). Following four opinions from CIT, the trade court eventually found that it could not find any statutory basis for the regulations. Another consolidated plaintiff and defendant-intervenor, Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc., has appealed the decision (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00122).