CVD Petitioners Urge CAFC to Reject Respondent's Motion to Correct Opening Brief for 4th Time
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not allow countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir to "continually revise its opening brief under the guise of a Notice of Correction," CVD petitioners Globe Specialty Metal and Mississippi Silicon argued in a reply brief. Voicing their opposition to TKT's and the Kazakh Ministry of Trade Integration's request to file a fourth opening brief, Globe and Mississippi Silicon said that "even a cursory review of the changes" shows a "litany of changes that are substantive in nature, including new arguments and sentences, deletions of material, and large-scale replacements of discussion" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
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.
TKT and the Kazakh trade ministry already have made three corrections to their opening brief, resulting in three different versions of the brief appearing in the docket. After TKT's and the Kazakh government's third opening brief was also found to not be in compliance with court rules, the appellants filed a notice of correction and, if needed, a motion for leave to correct the brief.
Globe and Mississippi Silicon noted that 615 changes had been made between the first and third versions of the brief. They said they "are seriously concerned that TKT will treat any future notice of non-compliance as a license for further substantive revisions," the brief said. "This Court should make clear that TKT is required to follow the rules."
TKT and the Kazakh trade ministry are challenging the Commerce Department's use of a total adverse facts available rate due to an untimely filed submission in the proceedings (see 2303010060). The appellants said they needed to further correct their opening brief since Commerce changed its practice as to "filing questionnaire responses and respondent filing difficulties" in ways confirming TKT's arguments in its opening brief (see 2305090036).