US Says Magnesia Carbon Brick Petitioner Improperly Seeking CIT Reconsideration of Holding
Supporting the Commerce Department’s reluctant reversal on remand finding that bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. weren’t covered by antidumping duties or countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks, (see 2503130022), the U.S. said July 3 that a petitioner’s opposition really seeks just to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its decision (Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
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.
Petitioner Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee acknowledged that Commerce’s remand redetermination is in accordance with CIT Judge MIller Baker’s instructions (see 2412130061), the U.S. said. The judge held based on a prior court case, Fedmet I, that bricks with any amount of alumina aren’t covered by the AD/CVD orders, and all parties agreed Commerce complied with that interpretation.
The petitioner was challenging Baker’s interpretation of Fedmet I, not Commerce’s execution of the judge’s order, the government said. So, “[u]nder the Court’s rules, such a challenge to a remand order should have been lodged through a motion for reconsideration pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b),” it said.
Alternatively, it said, even if the court should agree to reconsider its decision, “no further remand to the agency is warranted.” Instead, it argued, if the Court were to grant the Committee’s reconsideration request, Baker should sustain Commerce’s decision in the initial final determination -- that only bricks made of more than 5% alumina escape the AD/CVD orders (see 2402130053).