Two New Section 337 Complaints Target DRAM and Foundry Coke as CIT Sends Qatar Melamine Back to Commerce
The Court of International Trade has sent Commerce's negative antidumping determination on melamine from Qatar back for reconsideration, faulting the agency's explanation for using Turkey as the third-country comparison market. The same week, the USITC received two new Section 337 complaints, one on DRAM devices and one on foundry coke, and opened the public-interest comment window on each.
Three trade-enforcement files moved on separate tracks. In Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States (Court No. 25-00005, Slip Op. 26-64, June 17, 2026), the CIT sustained Commerce's negative dumping finding in part and remanded in part, faulting the agency for not addressing whether subsidized Chinese melamine disqualified Turkey as the comparison market. The two Section 337 complaints, DN 3915 on DRAM and DN 3914 on foundry coke, have not been instituted yet, and the Commission is taking public-interest comments before it decides whether to proceed.
The melamine remand is the clearest legal signal of the three, and it is not a preliminary-margin dispute. Commerce already issued a final negative antidumping determination in December 2024, which terminated the antidumping proceeding and left no antidumping cash-deposit or suspension-of-liquidation requirement. The domestic petitioner, Cornerstone, is the party seeking duties, while the Qatari producer and QatarEnergy intervened to defend the no-dumping result. The court did not order duties. It returned one issue to Commerce, whether a sales-based particular market situation in Turkey, allegedly driven by subsidized Chinese imports, disqualifies Turkey as a proxy market. If Commerce changes course on remand, the path runs toward constructed value or a different third country, not an automatic duty order.
The two Section 337 complaints are still at the complaint stage, but neither is minor. Netlist, Inc. brought the DRAM complaint and named Samsung entities, Google, Super Micro Computer, NVIDIA, and Broadcom as respondents, which puts the dispute inside the server, cloud, and AI-hardware supply chain. SunCoke Technology and Development LLC and Jewell Coke Company L.P. brought the foundry coke complaint against European coke producers and traders, an industrial-input fight rather than a consumer-electronics one. Both complainants want a limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders, and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period. The work to do now is public-interest positioning before the Commission decides whether to institute.
AD/CVD teams tracking melamine from Qatar should follow the remand, not watch for near-term deposit changes. The open question is whether Commerce can better explain or revise its Turkey comparison-market choice, and any duty consequence would depend on the remand redetermination and further agency action, not on the June 17 opinion alone. A separate CVD order on melamine from Qatar remains in place and is outside this AD remand. The remand affects only Commerce's negative antidumping determination, and it does not disturb the existing countervailing-duty order.
Importers and supply-chain teams handling DRAM and foundry coke should treat DN 3915 and DN 3914 as exclusion-order watch items. Public-interest comments are due by close of business on June 30, 2026, eight calendar days after the June 22 Federal Register publication. For DRAM, the downstream exposure runs through U.S. server, data-center, and AI-hardware availability. For foundry coke, it runs through U.S. foundry, casting, and downstream metals production. Anyone with a stake in either supply chain should decide whether to comment before institution.
Watch for Commerce's remand redetermination in the melamine case and any CIT review of that result. Watch the USITC for the institution decisions on DRAM (DN 3915) and foundry coke (DN 3914), which come after the public-interest comment period.
Today's signal is procedural, not thematic. The melamine remand sends one antidumping question back to Commerce, while the two Section 337 complaints open separate exclusion-order watchlists on DRAM and foundry coke. There is no shared product, country, or enforcement campaign. The job is docket segregation, remand monitoring for melamine and public-interest positioning for the two new complaints.
CIT Remands Commerce's Negative Antidumping Determination on Melamine From Qatar (Slip Op. 26-64)
In Cornerstone Chemical Co. v. United States (Court No. 25-00005), the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce's final negative antidumping determination on melamine from Qatar. The court held that Commerce had not adequately explained its selection of Turkey as the third-country comparison market and sent that issue back, while sustaining the agency's cost-of-production analysis. The opinion is dated June 17, 2026.
Commerce's December 2024 final determination found no dumping and terminated the proceeding, so no antidumping cash deposit or suspension of liquidation is at stake today. The remand reopens only the comparison-market question. If Commerce finds Turkey ineligible, it must pick another third country or use constructed value, which could change the dumping analysis but does not by itself produce a duty order. A separate CVD order on melamine from Qatar is unaffected.
Paid review
Paid keeps the archive and source-backed exports available when a review needs to stay open.
See Paid pricing