The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Clerk's Office and Circuit Library will be unavailable "for public services and support" from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT on April 26, the court said. Electronic filing will remain available and nonelectronic filings can be sent to the night drop box on H Street, NW, in Washington, the court said.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the government's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision scrapping a customs bond penalty action against surety firm American Home Assurance Co. The U.S. voluntarily dismissed the case (see 2404170042) (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).
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.
Three German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, opposed the U.S. government's motion for an extension of time to file its response brief in an appeal of the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. The U.S. asked for a six-day extension, but Ilsenburger said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already given the government a 37-day extension and that the additional six days would effectively double the time under the court's rules to file a response brief (Ilsenburger Grobblech v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
Chinese exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to "re-visit and question" the Commerce Department's basis for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings. The exporter noted that the policy "has reigned for over twenty years without serious legal challenge," arguing that the appellate court has never directly reckoned with the policy's legality and that it's "high time" for such a review (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and defendant-appellee petitioners fought back against an importer’s opening brief that argued a Commerce Department scope ruling “would overturn more than 10 years of black-letter law” (Valeo North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 5 that the Commerce Department properly countervailed the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. Filing a response to respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the government said that key Federal Circuit precedent -- AK Steel Corp. v. U.S. -- controls in this instance in that the agency wasn't required to consider Hyundai's construction costs in building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 dismissed importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While Rimco filed suit under Section 1581(a) or, Section 1581(i) in the alternative, Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes said that jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) since the action's "true nature" was contesting a decision made by the Commerce Department.