In choosing a second mandatory respondent for a nearly 5-year-old Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires antidumping review and removing separate status from four other exporters that refused to participate, the Commerce Department fully complied with a 2023 Court of International Trade remand order (see 2302020032), the government said April 2 (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's decision that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Leonard Stark echoed the Court of International Trade in finding that it would have been "unreasonable" for the exporter to include the AD in the price charged to the importer because the "exporter itself was not responsible for those duties."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's finding in an administrative review on hot-rolled steel flat products that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Leonard Stark said that while petitioner U.S. Steel can "point to several instances in the record where BlueScope" submitted responses that "could fairly be read to contradict its overall narrative" regarding how it charged its affiliated importer, it's ultimately not enough to "render the agency's decision unreasonable or not based on substantial evidence."
Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition opened its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the Commerce Department's decision on remand finding that shipbuilding company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier. Filing an opening brief on April 2, the petitioner said that Commerce originally got it right in cross-attributing Nur's subsidies to Kaptan in the 2018 CVD review on rebar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
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.
During oral arguments March 26 for weekly and monthly planner classification case, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani told parties that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is written in British, not American, English (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).
The National Courts Building -- home of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- didn't receive U.S. Postal Service mail March 20-22. As a result, the court clarified in a March 26 notice that deadlines for nonelectronic filings and submission due March 20-22 and submitted via mail "will be deemed as timely filed if received on Monday, March 25, 2024. All other deadlines are unaffected."
A group of U.S. mattress makers, led by Brooklyn Bedding, opposed exporter CVB's request for a 60-day extension in which to file its opening brief in an injury suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Only consenting to a 14-day extension, the mattress makers said CVB "has failed to show good cause exists" for a longer extension since the trade court's decision in the suit was issued over 90 days ago (CVB v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Evan Wallach on March 25 deferred exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal in an antidumping duty case to the three-judge merits panel assigned to the case. The appeal came from petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire from the Court of International Trade's decision to impose an injunction on the Commerce Department's AD cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. Oman Fasteners moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that since the injunction is no longer active since Commerce completed the next review of the AD order, there's no live controversy (see 2401300069). The trade court granted the injunction after finding the agency abused its discretion in setting a 154.33% AD rate on the exporter for narrowly missing a filing deadline (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
Correction: Indian exporter Kumar appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available antidumping rate to the exporter (see 2403140027).