The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 ordered exporter Risen Energy Co. to appear at oral argument in an antidumping duty case after the company waived its right to appear (see 2408020019). Risen originally brought suit to contest the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China, arguing that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The per curiam order from the court told Risen to appear at oral argument after the U.S. said it would appear (see 2408070003) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 13 again said President Donald Trump didn't violate the Trade Act of 1974 when he revoked a Section 201 tariff on bifacial solar panels. The court previously sustained the move in a November 2023 decision (see 2311130031). Partially granting a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel reconsideration, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark conducted a de novo review of the president's interpretation of the applicable statute allowing for the tariff action instead of reviewing whether the interpretation was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute. However, the panel said that the case isn't an "appropriate vehicle" for overruling the court's "clear misconstruction" standard of review for presidential decisions under the Trade Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 said the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," is not presumptively unreasonable. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said instead that the "burden is on Commerce to justify a departure from the expected method, not to justify its use."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The governments of Canada and Quebec, along with exporter Marmen Energy, vied for rehearing of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision sustaining the countervailability of a Canadian tax program. Filing for full court or en banc rehearing of the decision, the Canadian government said the court allowed the Commerce Department to ignore "economic reality" and elevated "form over substance" (The Government of Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1807)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 held that it's not unreasonable for the Commerce Department to set the all-others rate for non-individually examined respondents in an antidumping proceeding by using only total adverse facts available rates assigned to the mandatory respondents. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said there's no burden on Commerce to show that using only AFA is reasonable, finding instead that the burden is on the agency to "justify a departure from the expected method," not to "justify its use." Judge Timothy Dyk filed a partial dissent, finding that just because the use of AFA is "expected" doesn't make it "reasonable." As a result, Dyk said Commerce must show that the sole use of AFA in setting the all-others rate is reasonable.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2407240048). The AD order's scope language includes standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. Two of the three judges deciding the case found that "meeting an additional specification" for line pipe "does not strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes" (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Clerk's Office and Circuit Library will be unavailable Aug. 1 from 1 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. EDT, the court announced. Nonelectric filings can be deposited at the court's night drop box on H Street NW in Washington D.C. Electronic filing remains available.
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.
Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recommended that the court's Judicial Council sanction Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases for another year. The three judges previously sanctioned Newman, 97, for one year for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench (see 2309200024). With the end of the one-year ban looming, the judges asked Newman to show cause why she shouldn't be subject to a renewed sanction. Moore, Prost and Taranto said that Newman hasn't shown any evidence to undermine the vast record "raising serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state," and she hasn't cooperated with the investigation.