The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
Country of origin cases
Tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente failed to address many of its claims before the Commerce Department in a case on the agency's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement, the government said in a reply brief. Issuing the brief after the trade court said Bioparques has the jurisdiction to challenge the decision, the U.S. addressed the remainder of the exporter's eight claims, arguing that Commerce's continuation of the investigation was "properly conducted" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT # 19-00204).
Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 30 order accepted the amended opening brief and addendum filed by Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines in an antidumping duty review. In submitting its amended brief, TKT submitted a version of its original opening brief with corrections sought by the clerk of the court and also a version with these corrections plus corrections additionally requested by the exporter. The appellate court accepted only the first form of these submissions (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
CBP reversed an evasion determination against Scioto Valley Woodworking, after initially having found that Scioto had imported Chinese wooden cabinets and vanities by transshipment through Malaysia using adverse facts available. Upon review, CBP found the use of AFA was unwarranted and said evidence showed the manufacturer, Alno, could and did produce wooden cabinets and vanities in Malaysia.
The government incorrectly claimed that there are two separate jurisdictional paths for contesting Enforce and Protect Act decisions, appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy Corp. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The Commerce Department stuck with its use of the Cohen's d test as part of its effort to root out "masked" dumping in an antidumping review after adding certain academic literature to the record as instructed by the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results to the trade court June 27, Commerce said certain statistical assumptions -- normality of the distribution, equal variances and around the same sample size -- don't limit the agency's use of the d test, given that it used the entire population of data as opposed to a sample (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00083).
Antidumping respondents led by Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) mischaracterized the record when arguing in favor of the Court of International Trade's rejection of the Commerce Department's finding that ZASF's third country sales to Vietnam were not representative of the company's sales in the third country market, petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee said in a reply brief. The petitioner told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court illegally reweighed the evidence on ZASF's Vietnamese sales, usurping Commerce's authority in the AD review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
Canada's proposed "last sale" change to its customs valuation practice could present a host of problems for customs brokers, law firm Neville Peterson said in a blog post. If the regulatory change, which would require imports to be assessed duties according to the price of their "sale for export," is approved, brokers would have to examine resales to accurately file entries and would "no doubt be required to file many post-importation adjustments," the firm said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 22 order denied a bid for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the suit on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark made the decision denying the petitioners, ruling that the mandate will be issued June 29 (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).