The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 20 allowed patent attorney Andrew Dhuey to appear as amicus curiae to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an antidumping duty and countervailing duty injury determination. CAFC Judge Leonard Stark took up Dhuey on his offer, appointing him "in support" of the trade court's decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
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.
The U.S. said Feb. 7 that importer Mitsubishi’s catalyst blocks were actually filters, despite the importer’s arguments otherwise, and thus was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and assessed Section 301 tariffs (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the concept of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "does not affect" the Court of International Trade's review of the differential pricing analysis, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 14 brief (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).
The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).
The Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 11. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen also held that Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion.
Responding to a request by the court, multiple parties filed four different briefs addressing the impact of Loper Bright on litigation regarding the use of a differential pricing analysis in a Canadian lumber review (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges didn’t ask much as, on Feb. 3, Chinese exporters led by Carbon Activated Tianjin faced off against petitioners and the United States regarding the results of two administrative antidumping duty reviews on its activate carbon products. The exporters argued, among other things, that the Commerce Department used too narrow a category of product when selecting a surrogate value for the prices of an input (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135, 23-2413).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 30 in a case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its decision, CAFC said the Commerce Department failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio (see 2412090028) (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).