Exporter Oman Fasteners said a recent Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines supports its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one "inadvertent missed deadline 'without more'" doesn't support the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case. Oman Fasteners filed a notice of supplemental authority on June 10 calling the appellate court's attention to CIT's holding in Cambria Co. v. U.S. (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
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. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 that the Court of International Trade correctly found that sales between Canada-based Midwest-CBK and its U.S. customers met the requirement of being sold "for exportation into the United States" and thus were properly liquidated using transaction value with a 75.75% "uplift" to the goods' valuation. Goods are meant for export to the U.S. when they are "clearly destined for the United States at the time of the sale," which the goods at issue were, the government said (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).
A defendant-intervenor in an exporter’s case challenging the results of a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada on June 6 opposed a motion to stay proceedings while a similar case winds its way through the appeals process. It argued that while the case on appeal deals (again) (see 2107150032) with the proper use of the “Cohen’s d test,” (see 2401110037) the case is not applicable in its own litigation (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to sustain the Commerce Department's use of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Food's (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value in an AD review on Indian frozen warmwater shrimp. The unanimous order from Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes was issued without an accompanying opinion.
Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments June 6 in a lumber exporter's case. The exporter is challenging its 2020 cash deposit rate set by a 2019 review after the Commerce Department previously ordered liquidation of its 2019 entries at a lower rate carried over from 2018 (J.D. Irving v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeared skeptical that antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee could overcome the Court of International Trade's discretionary finding that the petitioner failed to adequately argue that third country sales must be "for consumption" in the third country market when determining normal value (Z.A. Sea Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 30 issued its mandate following a decision dismissing importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2404080036). The appellate court said jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) as a challenge to a Commerce Department decision, instead of under Sections 1581(a) or 1581(i) as asserted by Rimco. The importer challenged the AD/CVD as being excessive under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rimco v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The Canadian government and a group of eight Canadian lumber exporters sought to file an amici curiae brief in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. Filing unopposed for leave to file the briefs on May 28, the parties said they can provide "unique and robust explanations of the Cohen's d denominator, a full understanding of which will" aid the court to settle the issues in the case (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).