CAFC Mulls Giving CVD Appellants 900 More Words to Address US Exhaustion Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 order stayed the due date for plaintiff-appellants' reply brief in a countervailing duty case, pending the resolution of the appellants' motion seeking another 900 words for their reply. The appellants, the province of Quebec, Marmen, Marmen Energie, Marmen Energy and the government of Canada, claimed good cause existed to give them the additional words since the U.S. argued that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies relating to the specificity of the Quebec On-The-Job Training Tax Credit in addition to the four underlying issues in the case (Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
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 concerns the countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. Commerce found respondent Marmen received benefits through eight programs or credits, among them tax credits from Quebec for on-the-job training and to promote employment in Gaspesie and other maritime regions (GASPETC), and Canada's and Quebec's treatment of depreciation for the taxation of certain buildings used in manufacturing. The result was a 1.18% CVD rate for Marmen and all other exporters.
The Court of International Trade in a March opinion upheld Commerce's decisions (see 2203230064), prompting the Quebec and Canadian governments and Marmen to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Now preparing their response to the U.S. reply brief, the appellants said they need more words, given the government's argument that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
"The Canadian Parties do not believe that an adequate treatment of the four underlying issues and the exhaustion/waiver issue can be presented in a single reply brief within the 7,000 word limit contained in Federal Circuit Rule 32(b)(1)," the brief said. "Limiting the Canadian Parties’ discussion to 7,000 words for the four issues that were raised in their principal brief as well as the new exhaustion/waiver issue would severely hinder their ability to meaningfully present their arguments." The U.S. and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition consented to the motion.