Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned both exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. and the U.S. government during oral argument on the exporters' challenge to the Commerce Department's finding that Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus didn't show independence from Chinese state control in the seventh review of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2165).
An attorney for exporters China Manufacturers Alliance and Double Coin told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit they were dropping their argument that it was a legal error for the Commerce Department to consider only one of four statutory factors in determining government control. The attorney, James Durling, was questioned by the appellate court during April 7 oral argument on his remaining point -- that the department’s decision to reject the exporters’ separate rate applications wasn’t based on substantial evidence (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
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.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a recent CAFC decision, Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., supports the government's position that the U.S. doesn't need to show a link between the "selection of management and the company’s export activities" in finding that a respondent has failed to show a lack of government control. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a trio of cases, the government said Pirelli also supports its position that "respondents must meet the burden or persuasion to establish independence regardless of any evidentiary presumption" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2164) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
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 International Trade Commission and court-appointed amicus Andrew Dhuey scrapped over whether Dhuey should be given access to the business proprietary information in an appeal on the Court of International Trade's rejection of a request to redact information released in a court decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses is unlawful," the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice isn't in line with "statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense."
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.