An attorney for exporters China Manufacturers Alliance and Double Coin told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit they were dropping their argument that it was a legal error for the Commerce Department to consider only one of four statutory factors in determining government control. The attorney, James Durling, was questioned by the appellate court during April 7 oral argument on his remaining point -- that the department’s decision to reject the exporters’ separate rate applications wasn’t based on substantial evidence (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
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.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a recent CAFC decision, Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., supports the government's position that the U.S. doesn't need to show a link between the "selection of management and the company’s export activities" in finding that a respondent has failed to show a lack of government control. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a trio of cases, the government said Pirelli also supports its position that "respondents must meet the burden or persuasion to establish independence regardless of any evidentiary presumption" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2164) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
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 International Trade Commission and court-appointed amicus Andrew Dhuey scrapped over whether Dhuey should be given access to the business proprietary information in an appeal on the Court of International Trade's rejection of a request to redact information released in a court decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses is unlawful," the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice isn't in line with "statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense."
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 originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber opposed the government's bid to file a supplemental brief to a status report in a dispute on whether the excluded parties can obtain refunds of CVD cash deposits. The originally excluded parties said the U.S. failed to establish good cause for submitting a reply to the status report (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Food supplement exporter BASF filed March 17 in opposition to the U.S.’s cross-motion for judgment in its case. It disagreed with the government’s claim that its products didn’t fit the requirements of BASF’s preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).