A group of domestic steel manufacturers doesn't have the right to intervene in a spate of challenges to denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Sept. 8 opinion. Ruling against the Court of International Trade's opinion that the would-be intervenors did not establish standing, Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes ultimately found that the interveners nevertheless failed to identify a legally protectable interest to qualify as intervenors under the trade court's rules.
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 7 paperless order instructed the plaintiff, Environment One, in a case over a denied Section 301 exclusion request to file a supplemental brief over whether a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision is relevant to the current action (Environment One Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00124).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 8 opinion denied a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in six cases challenging denied exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that the domestic producers did not have a legally protectable interest in the case, though they parted from the trade court's position in ruling that the manufacturers established standing to intervene. While they had standing, the lack of a legally protectable interest stunted their bid to join the litigation. Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the majority opinion, ruling the manufacturers have clear economic interests in the tariff exclusion requests, establishing their right to intervene.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changed the label on a key antidumping duty decision from "nonprecedential" to "precedential." The decision stated that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The appellate court said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason that it's reasonable to use only a single rate. The decision was originally listed as "nonprecedential," but the court later reversed that (YC Rubber Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1489).
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. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit corrected an error in a recent opinion, changing the listing for the lead attorney for some of the plaintiff-appellants. The appellate court issued the errata, listing Jonathan Stoel of Hogan Lovells as the lead attorney for appellants ITG Voma, Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong), Sutong Tire Resources and YC Rubber (North America), instead of Nicholas Sparks. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026) (YC Rubber v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1489).
Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
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. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Aug. 29, following its ruling that the Commerce Department can use total adverse facts available to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from China. The appellate court said that while the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce (see 2207060027). The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products due to its main supplier's transshipment scheme (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.