The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first clear indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from the Commerce Department liquidation instructions, which were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll ruled that the Court of International Trade was right to find in a separate case, which put in place the injunction on the 11 entries under dispute in the present action, didn't unambiguously end the injunction, resulting in a finding that CBP timely liquidated the entries. The judges further held that while one of the entries should have been labeled as being reliquidated because it was deemed liquidated by law, this error was harmless.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate July 22 following its opinion ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. In the June opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion, finding that the merchandise was commercially available before Dec. 8, 2016, and was thus not later-developed merchandise that circumvented the AD/CVD orders (see 2206150032) (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc., et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
The U.S. on July 14 appeared in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The court in June invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief after it failed to appear to that point (see 2206100045). In response, Elizabeth Speck at DOJ asked the court for another 92 days to file the amicus brief, filing an unopposed motion for extension of time. In the brief, Speck said that the additional 92 days is necessary since the U.S. has decided not to participate in the appeal.
President Donald Trump's move to revoke an exclusion to Section 201 safeguard measures on bifacial solar panels was "particularly pernicious," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Clean Power Association argued in a July 12 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The amici said that safeguard measures should be applied in a way that's "predictable, circumscribed, and allows for reasonable business planning," and that Trump's move violated these principles. Revoking the exception injected uncertainty into government-imposed safeguard measures, which will have a ripple effect in the economy, potentially making inflation and supply chain crises worse, they said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed four appeals over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value in antidumping duty proceedings. The appellant in each case, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube, voluntarily moved to dismiss the cases after it didn't petition the Supreme Court to hear a key case, Hyundai Steel v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said the statute doesn't permit Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Wheatland subsequently dropped all of its appeals on the subject except for one, which it argued should be continued even in light of the Hyundai Steel decision (see 2207120072). The court, in a series of three orders, dismissed four of the appeals and lifted the stay in the remaining one (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1173, #22-1174) (Husteel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1300).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 order lifted a stay in an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite its recent decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
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 in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).