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.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 18 text-only order granted the government's request for 60 more days to file their opening brief in a case on whether the statute of limitations had passed on an action seeking to collect on a customs bond from surety firm American Home Assurance Co. (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).
The Court of International Trade wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 15 reply brief. Defending the trade court's dismissal of retail giant Target's suit against a court-ordered reliquidation of Target entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate, the U.S. distinguished the spat from Cemex v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit barred reliquidation (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. In its opinion, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents (see 2310230013). Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration analysis after the court rejected its original preferential rate analysis in 2019 (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).
A September Court of International Trade decision is instructive in how to consider the Commerce Department's methodology for assessing de facto specificity regarding Quebec's On-The-Job-Training tax credit in a countervailing duty proceeding, exporter Marmen Energy Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 denied requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
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 Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Dec. 7 oral arguments sharply questioned importer Rimco's arguments that it didn't need to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to its adverse facts available rate administratively at the Commerce Department before challenging it in court (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument Dec. 6 on an appeal of a tariff classification case that ruled the wrapping, called “net wrap,” that certain farming machines use to package bales of hay were not considered agricultural equipment but rather textiles, carrying a higher duty (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).