The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.

Parties originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber opposed the government's bid to file a supplemental brief to a status report in a dispute on whether the excluded parties can obtain refunds of CVD cash deposits. The originally excluded parties said the U.S. failed to establish good cause for submitting a reply to the status report (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

The Court of International Trade on March 13 severed exporter Fontaine's case against the expedited countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada from the consolidated action on the review. Judge Mark Barnett sustained the review "with respect to Fontaine," ordering that the relevant entries be liquidated in line with the court's decision. In January, Barnett sustained the Commerce Department's use of Fontaine's FY 2015 tax returns to calculate the amount of the tax benefits received by the company (see 2501290040). The remaining issues in the case are unrelated to Fontaine (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

The Commerce Department must more fully explain its calculation methodology used to account for the differences in volumes of lumber purchased by exporter Les Produits Forestiers D&G and its affiliate, Les Produits Forestiers Portbec, from unaffiliated suppliers, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Jan. 29. Judge Mark Barnett said the U.S. failed to "clarify Commerce's decision-making" behind the calculation in the expedited countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's remand results in the expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber products from Canada, in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett sent the review back for Commerce to "reconsider or further explain its subsidy calculations with respect to" the consolidated entity of D&G/Portbec. The court found for the government on the remaining issues (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

The U.S. defended the methodology it used to calculate the amount of supplier subsides attributable to exporters Les Produits Forestiers D&G and its cross-owned affiliates, led by Les Produits Forestiers Portbec, on remand in a case on the expedited countervailing duty review of Canadian softwood lumber. Filing remand comments on Nov. 15, the government said two alternative methodologies floated by the petitioner, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, both fall short (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

Various companies that were originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber asked the Court of International Trade to clarify that they're due refunds of CVD cash deposits (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

A petitioner, a domestic lumber trade group, pushed back against the Commerce Department's ultimate post-remand finding that subsidies received by unaffiliated lumber suppliers were applicable to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents, but that those subsidies had no effect on the respondents’ rates. It again alleged that the department had made a “mathematical error” (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).

Responding to a trade court remand order (see 2404230031), the Commerce Department said it has reconsidered its decision and chosen to apply the subsidies received by unaffiliated suppliers of lumber to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents -- though this ultimately had no effect on those respondents’ countervailing duty rates (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).