The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's ability to require petitioners to file a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a reply brief on March 21, the government said the "whole-text canon of statutory interpretation" doesn't support petitioner Archroma's challenge to this requirement, since the statute on which the company bases its claim "does not limit Commerce’s power to impose procedural requirements to be met before a domestic interested party may submit the information called for by the statute" (Archroma U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).
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.
A panel of attorneys for importers, domestic petitioners and the government discussed March 13 topics that included the consequences -- or lack thereof -- Loper Bright might have on scope ruling litigation.
Three parties in a sprawling dispute over Canadian lumber each replied Feb. 21 to the U.S. argument that Loper Bright doesn't apply to judicial review of the Commerce Department’s administrative review of Canadian softwood lumber (see 2502140050) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).
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 Commerce Department continued to find on remand at the Court of International Trade that respondent Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos S.A. and an unnamed supplier, dubbed "Supplier A," are not affiliated, nor are they partners. The agency said it's important to "distinguish 'exclusivity' from 'reliance'" in conducting affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't "perfectly capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests" (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
The Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the concept of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "does not affect" the Court of International Trade's review of the differential pricing analysis, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 14 brief (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).
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.
Responding to a request by the court, multiple parties filed four different briefs addressing the impact of Loper Bright on litigation regarding the use of a differential pricing analysis in a Canadian lumber review (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
Commerce 'Effectuated Congress' Intent' by Denying Seafood Seller Wholesaler Status, Petitioner Says
The Commerce Department "effectuated Congress' intent" when it found that U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood is not a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said that while Congress didn't define the term "wholesaler" in the antidumping laws, the "overall text, structure, and purpose of the law do not reflect any intention to allow parties with merely tangential or fugitive wholesaling activity to force Commerce into action -- particularly for potentially manipulative ends" (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).