The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty investigation on ripe olives from Spain. In its decision, the appellate court said the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said that the Commerce Department shall receive "considerable discretion" in determining whether such demand is substantially dependent due to the general nature of the terms "substantially dependent" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 15 said that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require the distribution of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the CDSOA only includes reference to interest that is "earned on" AD/CVD and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order, and that this interest is the only type to be deposited into the statute's "special accounts."
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a July 11 oral argument probed the government and parties to an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case on its standard of review in the scope case. Judge Sharon Prost said at the outset that the court is "being very careful" in terms of what it says on standard of review issues in "light of all of the recent opinions and litigation concerning standard of review" in administrative law issues (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9 unsealed a May 29 order compelling Judge Pauline Newman to show cause for why she shouldn't continue to be subject to a suspension from hearing new cases in light of her continued refusal to cooperate with her colleagues' investigation of her fitness to continue serving on the bench. The suspension is set to expire in September.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9 granted a joint stipulation of dismissal from the U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The government appealed the Court of International Trade decision siding with Risen on the agency's land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026). Gregory Menegaz, counsel for Risen, said that the U.S. sought the dismissal, suggesting it was due to the "bad facts" for the U.S. in the review (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will sit at law schools and courthouses in the San Francisco area as part of its October session.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 9 dismissed the remaining claims U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman brought against three of her colleagues for their investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The Solar Energy Industries Association told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo scrapping the doctrine of Chevron deference to federal agencies should compel the appellate court to overturn the deferential standard established in Maple Leaf Fish Co. v. United States (see 2406280051) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
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.