Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto -- moved for assistance from the District Court for the District of Columbia in settling a dispute between the trio and their colleague, Judge Pauline Newman, over a mediation confidentiality agreement. While the motion, brought as part of Newman's case against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge, was silent on the nature of the dispute, the judges discussed ways the court could settle it (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
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.
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Canadian exporter Midwest-CBK filed a consent motion seeking to dismiss its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." or "domestic sales." The exporter said it "will not be able to provide further evidence" on the second phase of the litigation, which "would allow for determination of a dutiable value based on the "[Free on Board] Buffalo, New York" prices at which the company sold its imports to its U.S. customers. The company wants the issue resolved so it can "further the case's other issues on appeal" (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154).
Four Canadian lumber exporters, along with their cross-owned affiliates, referred to as the "Originally Excluded Parties," asked the Court of International Trade to relieve them from the effects of a court order reinstating the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The originally excluded parties said the order was based on an earlier judgment, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, concerning the legal ground for conducting expedited CVD reviews, meaning that the trade court should restore "the status quo ante that existed prior" to the order for the remainder of the case (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).
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. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 5 for 14 more days to file its reply brief in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada. The government said a second extension -- the first was 58 days long -- is required by its heavy workload in other matters. All the parties consented to the motion, though Jay Campbell, counsel for appellants led by Marmen Inc., said the companies believe that an extension is unwarranted, given the first, 58-day, extension (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia adopted an amended briefing schedule in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman's case against three of her colleagues pertaining to their fitness investigation of the 96-year-old judge (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry was "flawed" since the agency never gave the company a chance to comment on its calculation and analysis, Corinth argued in its Sept. 29 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The exporter added that Commerce also failed to support its use of a 41.04% AFA rate since the company didn't withhold information, impede the antidumping duty review on large diameter welded pipe from Greece or fail to submit information in the form and manner requested (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2094).