The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 16 denied exporter Koehler Oberkirch's petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to have the appellate court review the Court of International Trade's decision that the government could effect service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Judges Timothy Dyk, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark said Koehler failed to meet the "demanding standard" for granting mandamus relief (In Re Koehler Oberkirch, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week heard oral argument on whether the Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available against exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty review due to the company's failure to meet filing deadlines. Judges Todd Hughes, Sharon Prost and Timothy Dyk sharply questioned counsel for both Tau-Ken Temir and the government regarding whether the exporter took best efforts to meet filing deadlines and whether the government acted reasonably in rejecting the submission that was filed two hours late (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
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 Jan. 8 heard oral argument in the massive Section 301 litigation, primarily probing the litigants' positions regarding how to interpret the term "modify" in the statute and whether the statute allows the U.S. trade representative to impose duties in response to retaliatory measures from China (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 7 after rejecting Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i). The company recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2501020026). CAFC dismissed the case after finding its true nature to be a challenge to a former AD rate received by J.D. Irving, making jurisdiction proper under Section 1581(c) (see 2410100042). In addition, the court said relief could be sought either before a binational panel or in an AD review (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 7 clarified the standard Commerce must follow when determining how high it can set a review respondent’s antidumping duty rate based on adverse inferences. Rejecting a "single sentence" justification for an adverse facts available rate Commerce offered in the final results of a review, it held the department may not drastically depart from accuracy without establishing a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" based on record evidence showing unreasonable negligence or intentional misconduct.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 31 denied Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's bid for a full court rehearing of a three-judge panel's rejection of the company's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i) (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2024. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month to hear its antidumping duty scope case. The petition cast the lower court's decision sustaining the inclusion of its production in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand as a failure to apply the high court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. Wheatland Tube Co., Sup. Ct. 24-696).
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.