Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the principle of stare decisis requires the appellate court to sustain the legality of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
German paper exporters Koehler Oberkirch and Koehler Paper on May 13 opposed the government's bid to serve the companies' U.S.-based counsel in a separate case, claiming that the rules don't "permit such service." The exporters said service instead should be effectuated through diplomatic channels, as contemplated by the rules, as this would "respect international comity and due process principles" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).
The U.S. on May 10 told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade "improperly relied on extra-record information" in rejecting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
The Court of International Trade on May 9 allowed a case to proceed against the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on Southeast Asian solar panels, rejecting motions to dismiss from the government and nine solar cell importers and exporters.
The Court of International Trade in a May 1 decision made public May 9 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co., though it remanded the methodology used to come up with the AFA rate. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce failed to pick from facts available and "instead created facts by manipulating evidence on the record."