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
A finding of evasion against Skyview Cabinet USA was arbitrary and capricious because CBP failed to establish that the subject wooden cabinets and vanities were covered merchandise at the time they were made and because CBP failed to follow Enforce and Protect Act procedures when it applied adverse inferences, Skyview said in its Oct. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Masterbrand Cabinets Inc., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation, despite an objection from the plaintiff-appellants, led by HMTX Industries. The government's reply brief is now due Dec. 21 following the extension, which was the second of its kind following a 60-day extension (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Commerce Department legally found that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents in the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Oct. 23. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration (LTAR) analysis after its original preferential rate analysis fell short before the appellate court in 2019.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 23 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to countervail the South Korean government's provision of electricity as part of the countervailing duty investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said that, after the appellate court's previous rejection of Commerce's preferential rate analysis, the agency appropriately used a less than adequate remuneration analysis. Commerce also sufficiently investigated the Korean Power Exchange's generation costs and found no countervailable benefit, the court said.
Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto -- moved for assistance from the District Court for the District of Columbia in settling a dispute between the trio and their colleague, Judge Pauline Newman, over a mediation confidentiality agreement. While the motion, brought as part of Newman's case against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge, was silent on the nature of the dispute, the judges discussed ways the court could settle it (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
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.
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Canadian exporter Midwest-CBK filed a consent motion seeking to dismiss its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." or "domestic sales." The exporter said it "will not be able to provide further evidence" on the second phase of the litigation, which "would allow for determination of a dutiable value based on the "[Free on Board] Buffalo, New York" prices at which the company sold its imports to its U.S. customers. The company wants the issue resolved so it can "further the case's other issues on appeal" (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154).