The Commerce Department has not established an "irrebuttable presumption" of state control for exporters in nonmarket economies, antidumping duty petitioner the United Steelworkers labor union argued in a Jan. 5 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).
The U.S. swapped its principal counsel in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers. In a notice of substitution Jan. 3, the government said Christopher Berridge, DOJ trial attorney in the Commercial Litigation Branch, will replace Daniel Roland. In the case, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's exclusion of Siffron's dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049) (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).
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.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
The South Korean government's provision of port usage rights to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is not a countervailable benefit since it is the repayment of a debt, Hyundai told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 opening brief. Because the port usage rights allowed Hyundai to "recoup its costs" from building the Incheon North Harbor port, the rights did not provide a "gift-like transfer of funds that provided an advantage or profit to Hyundai Steel," the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
Big box retailer Target Corp. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for more time to file its reply brief in its suit against the Court of International Trade's decision to order reliquidation of Target's entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. While the brief is currently due on Jan. 5, 2024, Target asked if it could submit its arguments on Jan. 19 "due largely to the circumstances of the holidays" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) to use 3,135 additional words in its reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakstan. TKT asked for 14,000 words, twice the original allowance of 7,000, but the appellate court granted it the use of 10,135 words amid opposition from CVD petitioners (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
A ban on imports of Apple watches is on hold, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 27 granted Apple's bid for an interim stay of the International Trade Commission's import ban in a patent dispute concerning the watches' medical monitoring technology (Apple Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).
The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).