The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must review a three-judge panel's decision finding that China Custom Manufacturing Inc.'s solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. The exporter said that full court rehearing is needed to "secure and maintain uniformity" of the appellate court's prior decision regarding the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Commerce Department legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
A recent appellate court ruling requiring the Commerce Department to pick more than one mandatory respondent in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings doesn’t apply to all cases, the agency said. Commerce said "case-specific circumstances" free it of that obligation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 30 in a case wherein it ruled a protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation, rather than the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request. In the decision, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, failed to file a protest in time (see 2302060029) (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1161).
Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to a 16-minute late submission (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
Congress intended for subsidies given to "disparate processed agricultural products" to be countervailable under countervailing duty laws, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments from three Spanish olive exporters against the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent finding" in the Spanish olives CVD investigation, the coalition said that Commerce "responsibly interpreted the statutory language broadly" and in line with statutory intent (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
Oil country tubular goods exporter Husteel Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it does not intend to participate in an appeal over the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping. Husteel made the declaration in response to the court's notice to the company regarding its counsel's entry of appearance and certificate of interest. The appeal was recently reactivated following a Court of International Trade decision upholding the agency's use of the d test (see 2303070042) (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 rejected a textile company's expedited motion for a temporary injunction that would have required CBP to return its entries of imported coated fabric to unliquidated status or suspend the company's protests. Judge Evan Wallach said the company, Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, "failed to persuade the court of the likelihood that jurisdiction under" Section 1581(a) would be manifestly inadequate, establishing jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), as claimed by Berger (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).