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.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 13 said then-President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 safeguard tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, in a decision that gives the president wide discretion in taking tariff action. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said the president did not clearly misconstrue the statute to find that he could make a trade-restricting modification to past Section 201 tariff action.
Italian pasta exporters La Molisana and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani failed in their attempt to provide compelling reasons for the Commerce Department to do away with "longstanding, transparent, and consistent instructions for reporting protein content," the U.S. said in a Nov. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060).
Countervailing duty petitioners' opposition to exporter Tau-Ken Temri's (TKT's) bid to expand its word count for its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit falls flat, the exporter, along with the Kazakh Ministry of Trade and Integration, argued in a Nov. 6 brief to the appellate court. TKT said that it needs the extra words to respond to briefs from both the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon because, contrary to Globe's suggestion, the briefs don't make identical arguments (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department erroneously used Malaysian tariff schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized materials in an antidumping review of activated carbon instead of the broader Harmonized System subheading 4402.90, exporters Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and Carbon Activated Corp. argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the exporters said Commerce's decision was based on "inaccurate and unsupported factual findings" (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. and respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. during a Nov. 7 oral argument over Wheatland's claim that a Commerce Department scope ruling improperly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The Commerce Department added another respondent to the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the agency couldn't limit the review to one mandatory respondent. Tapping exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in its remand results, Commerce calculated an 18.15% dumping margin for the exporter, also leading to a recalculation of the separate AD rate, which now sits at 41.36%, down from 64.57%. The China-wide rate held steady at 87.99% (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-000069).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order granted a motion to extend time to file an opening brief from exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance in a case involving a review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The exporters now have until Nov. 28 to file the opening brief in a case whin ich the Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to assign Double Coin the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate due to the company's failure to rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities (see 2307200020) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 31 ordered the clerk of the Court of International Trade to transfer samples of pipe conduit to the appellate court in a customs case on importer Shamrock Building Materials' electrical conduit entries. In the case, the trade court said the conduits cannot insulate the base metal from the electrical current or the heat in the wire it surrounds, barring classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547. Shamrock is now arguing at the Federal Circuit that the heading, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," is the proper home for the goods (see 2309250037). The appellate court said the pipe conduit samples "may aid the court in its understanding of the issues in this case" (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 30 in a case on the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on fabricated structural steel from China. The appellate court said the ITC didn't err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope (see 2309070058). The court added that nothing in the record showed the ITC declined to address the issue, adding that the commission didn't violate the law by deciding that the captive production exception isn't applicable and finding no significant price effects from the imports (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1176).