Just as the Court of International Trade ruled, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can hear a Chinese diamond sawblade exporter’s case on a new issue arising from a separate rate determination even though CAFC has already decided a previous case regarding that same determination, an importer said Feb. 28 (China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
The Solar Energy Industries Association argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used the "right tools" of statutory construction to answer the "wrong question" of agency deference in sustaining President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. Filing a response on Feb. 28 to the government's opposition to SEIA's rehearing en banc motion, the industry group said that the U.S. didn't dispute, and "thus concedes," that the Maple Leaf deferential standard is "deeply out of step" with the law set by the Supreme Court, CAFC and other circuit courts (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
Solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy responded to the U.S. motion to dismiss their suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (see 2401230040) (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
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 statutory basis for the U.S. trade representative's lists 3 and 4A tariffs -- Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1930 -- only allows for a "modification" of existing duties and not a "radical and unprecedented seven-fold escalation launching an unbounded trade war with China," appellants in the massive lawsuit challenging the Section 301 tariffs on China told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 12 (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 12 dismissed a host of claims from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman against three of her colleagues for their investigation on Newman's fitness to continue serving on the court. Judge Christopher Cooper also rejected Newman's bid for an injunction against the CAFC Judicial Council's one-year ban on Newman hearing new cases at the court (see 2309200024) (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimbelry Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
While the U.S. remained neutral, a steel nail exporter on Feb. 8 called “moot” a petitioner’s motion to stay one antidumping duty appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the petitioner’s other interlocutory appeal had been heard (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).
The U.S. Judicial Council's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability's recent report sustaining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's one-year suspension of Judge Pauline Newman didn't evaluate her constitutional claims, leaving that to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newman told the district court (Pauline Newman v. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability in a Feb. 7 decision denied U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman's request for a review of the appellate court's decision to suspend her from hearing cases for a year, sustaining the sanction.
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.