Importer Phoenix Metal Co. on Oct. 16 voluntarily dismissed its appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act proceeding at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia (see 2406100027). The trade court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim EAPA investigation, finding that Phoenix failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. Counsel for Phoenix declined to comment on the decision to drop the appeal (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court.of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's electronic filing system, CM/ECF, will undergo maintenance from Oct. 19 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT Oct. 20, the court announced. The system will be unavailable during this time, though it "may be available for intermittent accessing of documents," the court said. Filers shouldn't try to file any new documents during this time.
In oral arguments Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that the plaintiff challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding whose entries have all already been liquidated was likely not going to succeed in reversing the dismissal of its case by the Court of International Trade (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave notice to the U.S. on Oct. 15 that it has failed to respond to exporter La Molisana's notice of oral argument in a case on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. Failure to file this document "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court," CAFC said in the text order (La Molisana v. United States, CIT # 23-2060).
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 on Oct. 11 issued its mandate in an appeal of a case on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit. The appeal was previously dismissed by CAFC for failure to prosecute (see 2408200028). A separate appeal of the case from exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite continues at the court, with the company claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the CVD statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific (see 2408080058) (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1595).
The United States and an importer of a wearable blanket, similar to a Snuggie, again traded briefs Oct. 10 regarding admissibility of evidence; this time, they specifically covered the issue of whether a CBP employee could testify at an upcoming bench trial (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 10 rejected a Canadian lumber exporter’s attempt to challenge the denial of a cash deposit rate under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), saying the exporter was attempting "to use § 1581(i) to make an end run around the binational panel’s exclusive review."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 30 granted exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s application for more time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in an antidumping duty scope case. The high court sent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a letter notifying the court of the extension on Oct. 7 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Oct. 10 that Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving was trying to avoid review by a binational panel by bringing its antidumping duty case to the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) jurisdiction rather than 1581(c). It said that the “true nature” of the exporter’s action was opposition to an AD rate it received in 2019, not the Commerce Department’s subsequent instruction to CBP, as J.D. Irving didn’t participate in the 2020 review. It also said that a binational panel had the power to provide J.D. Irving relief, if warranted (J.D. Irving v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).