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.
Parties in Judge Pauline Newman's suit against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a briefing schedule on March 14 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Newman will submit her response to her colleagues' motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 5, and the three CAFC judges will file their reply April 19. Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto submitted their motion for judgment last week, arguing that Newman's constitutional claims fell flat (see 2403110054) (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
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.
DOJ attorney Tara Hogan submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correcting a statement she made during March 7 oral argument in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
Honeywell, an importer of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies, said in a March 5 motion for judgment that its goods were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 rather than heading 6307, as CBP ruled (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7 said that importer RKW Klerks' net wraps products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops, are not "parts" of harvesting machinery under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham thus sided with CBP's classification of the products as "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under HTS subheading 6005.39.00.
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 last week issued guidance on "allowable and unallowble counsel scheduling conflicts" with oral argument sessions, clarifying that the list is non-exhaustive. The guidance said the three key requirements needed for a showing of "good cause" in rescheduling oral arguments are "certainty," in that the "conflict is already scheduled"; "specificity"; and "strong basis," which means the conflict must be for a "strong reason" and can't be easily "resolved or rescheduled."