The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 8 that its decision not to appear in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case "has no effect on the Court's standard of review." Filing a supplemental brief as an amicus at the invitation of the court, the government said its decision not to join the appeal "merely reflects its reasoned consideration not to pursue the appellate process" (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
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 government is attempting to argue that it has the discretion to decide what antidumping and countervailing duty orders mean regardless of those orders’ plain language, pipe fitting petitioners argued July 1 (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
The Court of International Trade on June 21 granted a group of Spanish olive growers' motion to dismiss five of its cases on various reviews of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain. The dismissals come after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a challenge from the olive exporters regarding the Commerce Department's determination on whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). CAFC said the trade court was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining substantial dependence (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT # 24-00078, 23-00076, 23-00039, 22-00106, 21-00338).
The U.S. and importer Fedmet Resources filed dueling briefs at the Court of International Trade discussing the impact of a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in an antidumping scope case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 27 per curiam order required litigants in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case to file supplemental briefs (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision to pick a secondary mandatory respondent in an antidumping review despite temporal limits on the selection process. However, Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's methodology for picking the respondent due to its failure to explain its removal of Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. from the list of eligible exporters.
After four remands in the Court of International Trade (see 2312210054), a German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials filed its opening bid with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21. The company, AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, claimed the Commerce Department wrongly used one of its products’ selling prices as a substitute for its costs of production, which amounts to “circular reasoning" (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).
An exporter of vehicle side bars said the U.S. is wrongly relying on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit patent case to convince the trade court to rule against that exporter (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject exporter Oman Fasteners' notice of supplemental authority regarding a Court of International Trade ruling on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).