The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 22 issued its mandate in a pair of cases seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions. In the suits, the appellate court sustained the dismissal of the cases for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that a protest must have been filed with CBP to properly effectuate relief. The Court of International Trade initially said jurisdiction was not to be had under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had a protest been filed (see 2209060035). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the true nature of the suits contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the U.S. Trade Representative's decision to grant an exclusion, even though the exclusions were granted after the deadline for filing a protest had lapsed (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2176) (The Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2177).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 19 invited the U.S. to respond to a petition from solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, to reconsider the case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. The court asked for a response by Feb. 2 (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
Target Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the U.S. failed to distinguish the court's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. from Target's case, in which the retail giant is contesting a court-ordered reliquidation of its entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. Target said that no "amount of legal legerdemain and reference to" distinguishable case law can "mask the vacuity of" the "attempted distinctions" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
Apple likely will stop selling watches that contain pulse oximeters, at least for now, after a Jan. 17 court order made clear that a stay on those watches’ Section 337 import ban would end the next day (Apple v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).
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.
Solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear their case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition defended the Commerce Department's decision to weight average, or "smooth," respondent Marmen's steel plate costs in the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The Commerce Department's use of thresholds proposed by Dr. Jacob Cohen -- the creator of the Cohen's d test -- for evaluating the d statistic in the agency's analysis to detect "masked" dumping isn't line with "normal statistical practice," exporter SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Jan. 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 issued its mandate in a case on the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases. In the opinion, the appellate court sustained Commerce's remand results dropping the adjustment for two respondents to the 2018 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand (see 2312040025). The court said petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to distinguish the case from the holding in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., in which the court first ruled against the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).
Tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked for 6,000 more words for their opening brief after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected their bid to submit two separate briefs. The companies noted that they received the government's consent and there's "good cause" to expand the word count (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).