The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed U.S. Steel Corp.'s appeal of its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denial. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), in which the appellate court said that a group of domestic steel companies do not have standing to intervene in these types of actions, the case should be dismissed (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed an appeal led by Ellwood City Forge on the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping duty investigation. The appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the action before filing their opening brief at the appellate court. Counsel for Ellwood did not reply to request for comment on the reason for dismissing the case (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1382).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 26 order gave defendant-appellee Mid Continent Steel & Wire until Feb. 22 to file a reply brief over the use of total adverse facts available rates for two non-cooperative respondents. The appellee said it needed the extra time due to "a significant volume of time-sensitive work arising from other cases being handled by" Mid Continent's counsel (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
The Commerce Department properly found that foreign manufacturer BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for the amount of antidumping duties BlueScope Americas paid on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products, defendant-appellees BlueScope and BlueScope Americas argued in a Jan. 25 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petitioner U.S. Steel's claims to the contrary rest on a misinterpretation of the record and inappropriately claim BlueScope Americas was indirectly reimbursed via formula price provisions laid out in a supply agreement between BlueScope and BlueScope Americas, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
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 in a Jan. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellants' motion for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case. Peter Marksteiner, clerk of the court, said that while the appellants, led by Amsted Rail Company, could "self-expedite the filing of their briefs," they failed to show that an expedited briefing was necessary (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
United States Steel Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff denial after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected U.S. Steel's and other steel companies' motion to intervene in another exclusion challenge. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), the case should be dismissed. Counsel for appellee NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. government said that they do not oppose the motion (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).
A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 18 in an antidumping case on whether the Commerce Department can pick just one mandatory respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review. In an August 2022 decision, the appellate court said that Commerce cannot use only one respondent in this context, finding that doing so cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). After the opinion was issued, the government asked for, and was given, more time to file a petition for rehearing (see 2211210070). The rehearing motion never came, leading to the Federal Circuit's mandate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).