Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should affirm the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) products from China by way of transshipment via the United Arab Emirates, defendant-appellee Steel Dynamics said March 14 in a reply brief filed with the appeals court. The UAE company's processing was minor or insignificant, marked by a low level of investment in the UAE, Steel Dynamics said (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1199).

The Commerce Department's rejection of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' filing in an antidumping duty sunset review -- which resulted in the revocation of the nearly 40-year-old order on chloropicrin from China -- was a "marked abuse of discretion" given that the producers' lawyer was impaired with "medical and technical issues," plaintiff-appellants, led by Trinity Manufacturing, said in a March 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

Exporter China Customs Manufacturing's solar panel mount assemblies are "fully and completely assembled" at the time they're imported, thus qualifying for a finished merchandise exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 8, CCM, along with Greentec Engineering, argued that the record shows that the solar panel mount assemblies satisfy each of the requirements for the exclusion, including being fully assembled at the time of entry (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1345).

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act taken as a whole authorizes expedited countervailing duty reviews, the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick along with six Canadian companies argued in a March 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When taking into account the context of the URAA, its legislative history and the legislative process through which the URAA was adopted, it's clear that Congress meant to establish an expedited review process, the Canadian parties argued.

The Court of International Trade erred when it found that importer Strategic Import Supply's protests were untimely filed, the tire importer said in its March 4 opening argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In fact, SIS should not have had to file the protest in the first place, since the U.S. should have provided the necessary refunds for overpaid countervailing duties without any other filings from SIS, the company said. The result of the trade court's ruling is a practice both "nonsensical" and unsupported by the statute's language (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after ruling that the Commerce Department can calculate the separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate. The case concerns the seventh administrative review of the ADD order on diamond sawblades from China. In the review, Commerce tapped Jiangsu Fengtai Single Entity and Chengdu Huifeng New Material as the mandatory respondents, handing them an AFA China-wide 82.05% rate and zero percent rate, respectively, then assigned an average of those two rates to the separate rate respondents (Bosun Tools Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1929, -1930).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).

Steel giant U.S. Steel argued that it should be able to file an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to support antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular in the company's bid to get a full court rehearing on a key AD question. The rehearing request concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. U.S. Steel says it can address the importance of PMS provisions in proceedings involving products not made by Welspun (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revised its Internal Operating Procedures Feb. 18, changing several of its rules. Alterations were made to its procedures for merits panels, briefs and hearings in cases using protective orders, panel conferences, the disposition of cases and en banc hearings and rehearings. For en banc rehearings, the court laid out the steps to be taken under which the rehearing poll is withdrawn. A poll is typically issued to the active judges for them to vote on whether a case should be given a full court hearing or rehearing. The Federal Circuit also updated its procedures for precedential and non-precedential opinions. Now, instead of sending non-precedential opinions to the administrative services office for copying and delivering to the clerk, the opinions will be sent directly to the Clerk's Office for issuance. For precedential opinions, the judges who wrote the decision will now circulate any and all opinions to the full court as opposed to each judge. If the panel of a case wants to make "major substantive changes" to an opinion in circulation, "it shall withdraw the opinion from circulation and recirculate the altered opinion to the full court for a new 10-day circulation period," the CAFC said.

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.