The U.S. said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, alternatively, sever the two companies' proceedings. The government said in its Nov. 16 brief that due to the "substantial overlap in the exporters' cases, dividing the record and requiring two briefs would be "inefficient" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Importer Under the Weather's response to the U.S. motion to dismiss its customs suit on backpacking tents "rests on legal misunderstandings and a pleading standard that was abrogated over a decade ago," the government said in a Nov. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. said the issue in the case is not whether it is "theoretically possible for a claim to exist" but whether Under the Weather plausibly alleged that a one-sentence approval from an import specialist was the "functional equivalent of a protest review" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
Solar cell importer Greentech Energy Solution cannot argue both that it suffered no injury on its goods until CBP issued a notice of action and that it was not required to file a protest with CBP since the agency's actions were purely ministerial, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 16 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Addressing Greentech's claims that its actions were not untimely nor improperly brought under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, the government said Greentech's Administrative Procedure Act claim must identify the specific final agency action it is challenging (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 opinion partially ended an antidumping duty case for one of two plaintiffs, German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, since its claims already have been resolved by the court. Salzgitter challenged the use of adverse facts available on its sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the AD investigation of cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany.
World Trade Organization committees could offer a path beyond the Dispute Settlement Body to settle trade-related issues, Baker McKenzie lawyers said in a Nov. 13 blog post. For instance, the Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures committees offer a forum to settle "practical and strategic issues" faced by companies engaged in international trade, the post said.
Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics Corp. will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision excluding importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China. In the opinion, the trade court said the Commerce Department reasonably found that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and an International Trade Commission report, established that the dividers didn't belong in the scope of the orders (see 2309260049). The petitioner said in its Nov. 14 notice of appeal that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
Importer Midwest Air Technologies' swaged line and corner posts should be classified as parts for structures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7308, and not under a heading 7306 as "other tubes," Midwest Air said in a Nov. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The company said that a prior customs ruling covering "the same or substantially similar merchandise" shows that swaged line and corner posts fit under heading 7308 and not 7306, freeing the company of Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability (Midwest Air Technologies v. United States, CIT # 23-00240).
The Commerce Department again failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's order concerning the agency's phosphate rock benefit calculations regarding countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit's mining rights, exporter Phosagro and its affiliate, Apatit, argued in remand comments at the trade court. The companies said that the remand results, which didn't make any changes to its position in the CVD investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, ignored the court's mandate regarding Commerce's use of Apatit's Profit Before Tax figure in its profit ratio instead of its Gross Profit Figure (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00117).
The Commerce Department failed to show on remand that antidumping duty respondent Nexco's acquisition prices are a "reasonable proxy for the cost of production of raw honey" as part of the AD investigation on raw honey from Argentina, Nexco said in remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's policy regarding unprocessed raw agricultural products where it bases cost of production on the cost of making the raw goods, even when the respondent isn't the producer, stands "in contrast to Commerce's policy regarding processed agricultural products where the exporter is the producer," the brief said (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).