US Asks for Extension to File Amicus Brief Over Whether It Can Conduct Expedited CVD Reviews
The U.S. in an Oct. 13 motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked for 30 more days to file an amicus brief in a case over whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The U.S. originally failed to appear in the case, leading to the appellate court inviting the government to file an amicus brief and address whether Commerce has the authority to engage in expedited CVD reviews (see 2206100045) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case stems from a January 2018 CVD order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. In March of that year, Commerce conducted an expedited CVD review for various Canadian lumber companies that had originally been assigned the all-others rate. The Canadian producers received de minimis CVD rates as a result, rendering them exempt from the order. However, the Court of International Trade subsequently ruled Commerce didn't have the authority to conduct the proceeding and that Section 103(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't work as a legal home for Commerce's regulation establishing the reviews (see 2108190002).
The plaintiff-appellants, led by Fontaine Inc., filed their opening brief in February. The U.S. said that counsel for the appellants did not oppose the motion to extend the time to reply. The extension was needed since the U.S. decided not to participate in the appeal, but given the court's invitation to file an amicus brief, the government "must make a decision as to the position or positions to be taken in the requested amicus brief," the U.S. said. The Solicitor General hasn't yet reached a decision, prompting the need for another 30 days, the brief said.