Oral Arguments Unnecessary in Review of AD Case on Steel Nails
The Court of International Trade should disallow a respondent in an antidumping duty case on steel nails from Taiwan to speaki at oral arguments, plaintiff Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in a March 20 opposition motion (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).
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.
PT Enterprise's comments on the remand determination contained new arguments not previously presented to Commerce, Mid Continent said. PT argued in its remand comments that the academic literature doesn't support simple averaging, as Commerce used on remand (see 2211140064). Because PT but did not make that argument during the remand proceeding itself, it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and should be barred from that argument now, Mid Continent said.
Second, given the "limited nature" of the remand and the fully developed record, Mid Contient argued that oral arguments would be unnecessary to review the remand determination. If the Court determines to grant PT's motion and hold oral arguments, Mid Continent said that it will appear and participate fully.