Exporter Oman Fasteners asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 29 to dismiss petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision imposing an injunction on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. The exporter said the injunction is no longer active because the Commerce Department completed the next administrative review of the AD order, so there is no live controvery in the case (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. swapped out its lead counsel in an antidumping duty case brought by importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after its counsel, Eric Singley, left DOJ. The government said in a Jan. 26 notice that it will slot DOJ attorney Kelly Geddes into the lead counsel role. Jin Tiong and Repwire filed the appeal to contest the government's finding that Jin Tiong wasn't eligible for a separate AD rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China because it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 gave the U.S. another 14 days to file its response to a group of solar panel exporters' bid for rehearing of the appellate court's ruling that President Donald Trump properly revoked a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The government has until Feb. 16 to submit its brief, which was invited by the court following the rehearing motion (see 2401220027) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case led by American Pacific Plywood to address the Federal Circuit's holding in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it with access to confidential business information in the investigation (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).
Libertarian think tank Cato Institute asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for leave to file an amicus brief in support of a group of solar panel exporters' bid to have the court revisit its ruling sustaining President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 22 issued its mandate in a pair of cases seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions. In the suits, the appellate court sustained the dismissal of the cases for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that a protest must have been filed with CBP to properly effectuate relief. The Court of International Trade initially said jurisdiction was not to be had under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had a protest been filed (see 2209060035). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the true nature of the suits contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the U.S. Trade Representative's decision to grant an exclusion, even though the exclusions were granted after the deadline for filing a protest had lapsed (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2176) (The Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2177).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 19 invited the U.S. to respond to a petition from solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, to reconsider the case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. The court asked for a response by Feb. 2 (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).