The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that it will "proceed as scheduled" amid "extensive street closures and traffic restrictions near the National Courts Building" the week of July 8. Access to the courthouse will be available from only H Street NW, the court said, encouraging counsel to budget additional travel time. Numerous Washington streets are seeing closures and/or restrictions this week due to the NATO Summit in the city.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. agreed July 8 to dismiss a case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1524). 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) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 8 that its decision not to appear in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case "has no effect on the Court's standard of review." Filing a supplemental brief as an amicus at the invitation of the court, the government said its decision not to join the appeal "merely reflects its reasoned consideration not to pursue the appellate process" (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).
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 government is attempting to argue that it has the discretion to decide what antidumping and countervailing duty orders mean regardless of those orders’ plain language, pipe fitting petitioners argued July 1 (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.
The Court of International Trade on June 21 granted a group of Spanish olive growers' motion to dismiss five of its cases on various reviews of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain. The dismissals come after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a challenge from the olive exporters regarding the Commerce Department's determination on whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). CAFC said the trade court was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining substantial dependence (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT # 24-00078, 23-00076, 23-00039, 22-00106, 21-00338).
Importer Nutricia North America filed an amended opening brief in a customs case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on its substances used to "treat life-treatening diseases in young children," after government attorneys asked for the revisions. The brief was amended in two spots (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The U.S. and importer Fedmet Resources filed dueling briefs at the Court of International Trade discussing the impact of a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in an antidumping scope case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27 struck an entry of appearance filed by counsel for Encore Wire Corp., terminating the company as a defendant in a case on the 2019-20 antidumping review of aluminum wire and cable. The court said that the entry of appearance for three Cassidy Levy attorneys -- Myles Getlan, James Ransdell and Chase Dunn -- was noncompliant and that the attorneys failed to file a corrected version of the entry (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).