CAFC Says Opening and Reply Briefs in AD Scope Challenge Not in Compliance With Court Rules
The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found building materials company Bruskin International's opening and reply briefs to not be in compliance with the court's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 10 notice. The paper copies of the briefs were not printed single-sided, contrary to court rules. The court does permit, though, the double-sided printing of appendices. Further, the paper copies of the reply brief had an incorrect yellow cover since the cover of the appellant's reply brief must be gray, the notice said (M S International, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Bruskin is challenging a purported expansion of the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of quartz surface products from China to include crushed glass, made in response to allegations of evasion. Bruskin, one of the plaintiffs in the CIT case on appeal, had been met with a strong rebuke by Judge Leo Gordon in the trade court's opinion. In its opening brief, Bruskin argued that the Commerce Department made numerous and significant procedural errors in the scope modification (see 2105210052).