The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 30 in a case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its decision, CAFC said the Commerce Department failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio (see 2412090028) (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
Parts of brake discs used in airplanes are "parts of an aircraft" and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 30. Judge Mark Barnett said that since the parts are "used for no other purpose," require "no further processing prior" to their use in a brake disc and have "no other substantial commercial application," they should be classified as aircraft parts.
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 Commerce Department doesn't fail to act when it denies a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, the Court of International Trade held. Instead, the denial is a "decision" and "not an action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," Judge Stephen Vaden said, dismissing a host of claims from importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA against Commerce's rejection of its exclusion requests.
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.
Responding to U.S. opposition to its summary judgment motion, importer Mitsubishi Power Americas said Jan. 17 that the government “proffered nothing to dispute” expert testimony that shows its products are neither filters nor purifiers and misunderstood the way they actually work (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 16 denied exporter Koehler Oberkirch's petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to have the appellate court review the Court of International Trade's decision that the government could effect service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Judges Timothy Dyk, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark said Koehler failed to meet the "demanding standard" for granting mandamus relief (In Re Koehler Oberkirch, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week heard oral argument on whether the Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available against exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty review due to the company's failure to meet filing deadlines. Judges Todd Hughes, Sharon Prost and Timothy Dyk sharply questioned counsel for both Tau-Ken Temir and the government regarding whether the exporter took best efforts to meet filing deadlines and whether the government acted reasonably in rejecting the submission that was filed two hours late (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
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.