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 July 11 opinion affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group in a case on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China. The two-page order from Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham was issued without an explanation of the ruling.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the 2014-15 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that a company unable to prove it has entries for the purposes of being granted a separate AD rate should not automatically be rescinded from the review (see 2305190060). While the court found unconvincing the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries, the judges did rule that exporter Ningbo Qixin did not establish that it had no shipments, even though the agency rejected a separate rate for the company since it couldn't verify any entries (Canadian Solar International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).
The Commerce Department's decision to countervail glass subsidies on remand improperly relied on post hoc rationalization, plaintiff-appellant Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering said during July 10 oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).
Judge Todd Hughes at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during July 10 oral argument expressed doubt over antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's claim that the Commerce Department can make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test where normal value is based on constructed value. The judge referenced the Federal Circuit's past ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which found that cost-based PMS adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5 dismissed importer Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest suit concerning attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, in an injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. Amsted Rail filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal a few days prior in the suit that the Court of International Trade previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
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.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 30 order accepted the amended opening brief and addendum filed by Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines in an antidumping duty review. In submitting its amended brief, TKT submitted a version of its original opening brief with corrections sought by the clerk of the court and also a version with these corrections plus corrections additionally requested by the exporter. The appellate court accepted only the first form of these submissions (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).