The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
There are other ways to achieve separate rate status in an antidumping duty review beyond filing a separate rate application, exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire argued in a Nov. 13 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer and exporter argued against the government, which claimed that Jin Tiong was not eligible for a separate rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China since it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
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. Judicial Conference and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved a series of increases to various national and local court fees to account for inflation, the appellate court announced. The new fees, which take effect Dec. 1, include an increase in the attorney admission fee, from $238, which currently includes a $50 local court fee, to $300, including a $101 local court fee. Docketing fees for petitions for review and for mandamus jumped from $500 to $600, and a fee for search of court records will rise from $32 to $34.
Chinese tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, in the alternative, sever the consolidated action for the two companies. The exporters said that the "good cause" prompting this action is that both exporters are currently adherent to the word limit for a single brief even though both of their cases rest on entirely unique fact patterns (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
President Donald Trump didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Nov. 13. Granting the president wider discretion to make modifications to Section 201 duties, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said that the statute -- Section 2254(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1930 -- allows for trade-restricting modifications, as opposed to only trade-liberalizing ones.
Italian pasta exporters La Molisana and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani failed in their attempt to provide compelling reasons for the Commerce Department to do away with "longstanding, transparent, and consistent instructions for reporting protein content," the U.S. said in a Nov. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 13 said then-President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 safeguard tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, in a decision that gives the president wide discretion in taking tariff action. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said the president did not clearly misconstrue the statute to find that he could make a trade-restricting modification to past Section 201 tariff action.
Countervailing duty petitioners' opposition to exporter Tau-Ken Temri's (TKT's) bid to expand its word count for its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit falls flat, the exporter, along with the Kazakh Ministry of Trade and Integration, argued in a Nov. 6 brief to the appellate court. TKT said that it needs the extra words to respond to briefs from both the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon because, contrary to Globe's suggestion, the briefs don't make identical arguments (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department erroneously used Malaysian tariff schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized materials in an antidumping review of activated carbon instead of the broader Harmonized System subheading 4402.90, exporters Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and Carbon Activated Corp. argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the exporters said Commerce's decision was based on "inaccurate and unsupported factual findings" (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).