The Supreme Court of the United States on May 1 granted the petition of a group of vessel challenging the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require them to pay the salaries of the federal observers they must carry on board to enforce the agency’s regulations. It's a case that could have broad implications for the deference afforded agencies to properly interpret and enforce the federal statutes they have authority over (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-451).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 6 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld Commerce's remand results, which used respondent Z.A. Sea Food's (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value in an AD review on Indian products. The domestic shrimp industry had argued Commerce should use constructed value because there is no evidence the shrimp sold in Vietnam was consumed by the Vietnamese customers. Katzmann waived the domestic industry's claims "due to the lack of adequate argument."
The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The U,S, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit needs to reconsider its dismissal of a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, plaintiff-appellants in the case, led by USP Holdings, argued in a July 22 motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff-appellants said that the court "failed to consider" the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act on the standard of review issue when finding that the scope of judicial review given to the Commerce Secretary's determination of threat to impair national security was identical to that given to the president, whose findings are not subject to the APA (USP Holdings v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a July 19 opinion denied Hong Kong-based apparel company Changji Esquel Textile's (CJE) bid for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, calling it "a Hail Mary pass." Judges Judith Rogers, Patricia Millett and Gregory Katsas held that CJE's claims that human rights violations are not proper grounds to be placed on the Entity List are not likely to succeed, upholding the district court's ruling saying the same thing.
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, had to file a protest to properly establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries, DOJ argued in an April 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to SIS's arguments that there was nothing to protest at the time since the countervailing duty rate was not final, DOJ said that this position is incorrect since the importer should have moved to suspend liquidation during the CVD review. Failing to do so precluded the ability to judicially challenge the liquidations, the brief said (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's request for a stay of its mandate during the company's appeal to the Supreme Court. In a March 23 order, Judges William Bryson and Todd Hughes rebuffed both of Welspun's arguments, which claimed that the company would suffer irreparable harm without a stay and that there's a reasonable shot the Supreme Court will reverse the appellate court's judgment (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).