Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 10 oral argument probed an antidumping petitioner's position that a supposed "methodological error" committed by a respondent in the reporting of its home market sales justified the use of total adverse facts available. Hitachi Energy USA, formerly known as ABB Enterprise, argued that errors committed in reporting the gross unit price for one home market sale justified tossing out the entire U.S. and home market sales database. Judges Pauline Newman, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark asked counsel for Hitachi and respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems questions over this position (Hyundai Electric v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2312).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Secretary's report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no imminence requirement in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the Secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute." Judge Timothy Dyk, author of the opinion, also ruled that the statute grants the president the discretion to set the nature and duration of the tariffs.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order granted Porsche Motorsports North America's motion to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking duty-free treatment of auto parts temporarily exported then reimported. The Court of International Trade previously denied Porsche this treatment, ruling that auto parts exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade" (see 2201030038). The trade court found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.
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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order granted Porsche Motorsports North America'as motion to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit seeking duty-free treatment of auto parts temporarily exported then reimported. The Court of International Trade previously denied Porsche the treatment, ruling that auto parts exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade." The trade court found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate June 2 in a case originally brought by exporter Nexteel over the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In the opinion, the appellate court said the Commerce Department didn't properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs of the subject merchandise (see 2203110044). The Federal Circuit also sustained Commerce's practice of capping freight revenue when calculating U.S. price. Most recently in the case, respondent SeAH Steel unsuccessfully vied for a full court rehearing (Nexteel Co. Inc. v. United States, CAFC # 21-1334).
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., appeared in two antidumping duty cases as a supplemental authority, according to two notices at the Court of International Trade. The May 24 opinion said the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available over a respondent's reporting of service-related revenue. The court ruled that Commerce's change of methodology and later finding that the respondent failed to provide all the required sales data in the right form cut against the statutory requirement to provide notice and opportunity to remedy a deficiency (see 2205240028). The appellate court said that Commerce has no right to use AFA unless the respondent has failed to provide the requested information after being notified of the deficiency.
Arguments from plaintiff-appellants in an antidumping duty case, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., are merely a bid to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit impermissibly re-weigh the record evidence over surrogate value questions, defendant-appellees Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norbit Americas argued in a May 31 reply brief. Also filing its reply brief was DOJ, arguing that the Commerce Department properly picked Malaysia over Romania as the primary surrogate country (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1298).
Plaintiff-appellants in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement filed a motion for a panel or full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court found that the appellants made no plausible challenge to the termination. Appellants Bioparques de Occidente, Agricola La Primavera and Kaliroy said the court's decision was made "despite the absence of any briefing or arguments on the matter in this appeal," raising serious fairness and due process concerns (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected South Korean steel exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s bid for a panel rehearing on the appellate court's ruling that found that the Commerce Department's practice of capping freight revenue when calculating U.S. price was reasonable (Nexteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CAFC # 21-1334).