CIT Denies Steel Nail Exporter's Bid to Fix Mistakes in Motion to Take Judicial Notice
The Court of International Trade in a paperless order Feb. 13 denied plaintiff Oman Fasteners' bid to fix mistakes in its motion to take judicial notice in an antidumping duty case. AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire opposed the motion on the grounds it was the second time in under a month the exporter asked the trade court for leave to address problems in one of its briefs. Judge M. Miller Baker issued the order (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case concerns the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, covering entries in 2020-2021. Oman Fasteners was a fully cooperating respondent in the review with the only hang-up coming from the exporter's supplemental Section C questionnaire responses. Part of the response was filed 16 minutes late, resulting in a total adverse facts available rate of 154.33%.
In its complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction (see 2212280043), Oman Fasteners dubbed the AFA rate "draconian" and said the company would face insolvency unless it can quickly resume its U.S. sales and maintain them throughout the case. In a separate proceeding, PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Section 232 duties were legally imposed. Oman Fasteners said the decision exacerbates the need for the injunction, filing a motion to take judicial notice (see 2302080070).
The respondent then filed for leave to fix mistakes in the brief, prompting opposition from Mid Continent. The petitioner urged the trade court to refuse to give Oman Fasteners "another bite at the apple" to fix the mistakes (see 2302090056). While Baker granted the plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice, he denied the motion for leave to file a reply in support of the motion as moot.