The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted the motion from a group of Canadian exporters to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling that overturned an expedited review that excluded them from the duties. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective back to August 2021, when the companies were first subjected to the order.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. added two attorneys to its litigation team in the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing an amended notice of appearance on Nov. 20, the government tacked on Melissa Patterson and Joshua Koppel -- two attorneys in DOJ's Civil Appellate Division -- to the appellee team for the U.S. (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted a group of Canadian exporters' motion to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling subjecting the companies to the order. Judge Mark Barnett said that while the second clause of Rule 60(b)(5) was not the proper basis for granting this request, the rule's third clause was, since the enforcement of the court's previous order subjecting the companies to CVD cash deposits is no longer equitable. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective going back to August 2021, when Barnett first subjected the companies to the order.
The U.S. said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, alternatively, sever the two companies' proceedings. The government said in its Nov. 16 brief that due to the "substantial overlap in the exporters' cases, dividing the record and requiring two briefs would be "inefficient" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave exporter SeAH Steel Corp. more time to file its reply brief in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked" dumping. The exporter now has until Jan. 8, 2024, to file its brief (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
There are other ways to achieve separate rate status in an antidumping duty review beyond filing a separate rate application, exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire argued in a Nov. 13 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer and exporter argued against the government, which claimed that Jin Tiong was not eligible for a separate rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China since it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
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. Judicial Conference and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved a series of increases to various national and local court fees to account for inflation, the appellate court announced. The new fees, which take effect Dec. 1, include an increase in the attorney admission fee, from $238, which currently includes a $50 local court fee, to $300, including a $101 local court fee. Docketing fees for petitions for review and for mandamus jumped from $500 to $600, and a fee for search of court records will rise from $32 to $34.
President Donald Trump didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Nov. 13. Granting the president wider discretion to make modifications to Section 201 duties, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said that the statute -- Section 2254(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1930 -- allows for trade-restricting modifications, as opposed to only trade-liberalizing ones.