The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Clerk's Office and Circuit Library will be unavailable Aug. 1 from 1 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. EDT, the court announced. Nonelectric filings can be deposited at the court's night drop box on H Street NW in Washington D.C. Electronic filing remains available.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 24 denied exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co.'s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recommended that the court's Judicial Council sanction Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases for another year. The three judges previously sanctioned Newman, 97, for one year for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the bench (see 2309200024). With the end of the one-year ban looming, the judges asked Newman to show cause why she shouldn't be subject to a renewed sanction. Moore, Prost and Taranto said that Newman hasn't shown any evidence to undermine the vast record "raising serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state," and she hasn't cooperated with the investigation.
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. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19 that importer Nutricia North America's medical foods should be classified as "food preparations" and not "medicaments" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
Mandatory antidumping duty respondent Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., along with 25 plywood exporters, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision giving Chengen and the separate rate respondents a zero percent dumping margin in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
On appeal, the U.S. and a petitioner eachdefended the Court of International Trade’s acceptance of its thrice-remanded (see 2401190037) countervailing duty calculation for Russian phosphate fertilizer exporters (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-00117, -20, -21).
The Court of International Trade properly rejected the Commerce Department's decision to set the separate rate respondents' antidumping duty margin by averaging a zero percent rate and an adverse facts available rate, exporter Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief July 17, the exporter said Commerce failed to support its use of the averaged rates and that the agency ultimately arrived at the correct determination: a zero percent margin for the separate rate companies (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
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 Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.