A defendant-intervenor in an exporter’s case challenging the results of a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada on June 6 opposed a motion to stay proceedings while a similar case winds its way through the appeals process. It argued that while the case on appeal deals (again) (see 2107150032) with the proper use of the “Cohen’s d test,” (see 2401110037) the case is not applicable in its own litigation (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 7 order affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to sustain the Commerce Department's use of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Food's (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value in an AD review on Indian frozen warmwater shrimp. The unanimous order from Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes was issued without an accompanying opinion.
Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeared skeptical that antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee could overcome the Court of International Trade's discretionary finding that the petitioner failed to adequately argue that third country sales must be "for consumption" in the third country market when determining normal value (Z.A. Sea Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
The Canadian government and a group of eight Canadian lumber exporters sought to file an amici curiae brief in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. Filing unopposed for leave to file the briefs on May 28, the parties said they can provide "unique and robust explanations of the Cohen's d denominator, a full understanding of which will" aid the court to settle the issues in the case (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 30 issued its mandate following a decision dismissing importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2404080036). The appellate court said jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) as a challenge to a Commerce Department decision, instead of under Sections 1581(a) or 1581(i) as asserted by Rimco. The importer challenged the AD/CVD as being excessive under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rimco v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 28 issued its mandate in a case on whether Australian antidumping duty respondent BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for AD. In the decision, the appellate court said AIS didn't reimburse its affiliate, ruling it would have been "unreasonable" for the exporter to include the AD in the price charged to the importer because the exporter itself wasn't responsible for the duties (see 2404040020). The case concerned the 2017-18 review of the AD order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
The Court of International Trade was wrong to rule that imported calendar planners should be classified by CBP as diaries instead of calendars, the importer said in its opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.