Statutory Interpretation

The Commerce Department’s self-developed “levels of trade” test doesn’t comport with U.S. law, especially since the Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright, Spanish aluminum exporter Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux argued Nov. 27 in support of its June motion for judgment (see 2406130052) (Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. United States, CIT # 23-00259).

Parties in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade continued their dispute on whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo should eliminate any deference shown to the Commerce Department's definition of the term "partners" in 19 U.S.C. Section 1677(33) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

U.S. importer CME Acquisitions argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. didn't overrule the appellate court's decision in Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. regarding how the Commerce Department sets the non-selected respondents' antidumping duty rate (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal and respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos traded briefs on the impact and relevance the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051), is relevant to the consequential litigation concerning the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 duties (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

In the wake of Loper Bright, the U.S. and two defendant-intervenors raised three different sets of arguments July 25 in defense of the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the statute governing sunset reviews. All three opposed a plaintiff softwood lumber exporter’s claim that its case had been substantially strengthened by the demise of the Chevron doctrine (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

The Supreme Court's recent decision eliminating the standard of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051) "will likely result in more litigation in the already heavily litigated world of international trade," two ArentFox Schiff partners said in a client alert.

Loper Bright was cited yet again -- this time in a challenge to a sunset review’s finding that a softwood lumber exporter probably would continue dumping its products in the absence antidumping duties -- as attorneys continue trying to define the new limits of judicial discretion in the post-Chevron era (see 2406280051) (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.

Chinese exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to "re-visit and question" the Commerce Department's basis for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings. The exporter noted that the policy "has reigned for over twenty years without serious legal challenge," arguing that the appellate court has never directly reckoned with the policy's legality and that it's "high time" for such a review (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).