The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit officially issued its order vacating and remanding the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding CBP's evasion finding for importer Royal Brush Manufacturing. The Aug. 1 order came a few days after the court's consequential opinion, which said CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the company (see 2307270038). The order remands the antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case so the agency can make the whole record available to the importer (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.
A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion refused to invalidate its past order instructing CBP to reliquidate Target Corp.'s metal-top ironing tables, saying that doing so would "turn the clock back over 40 years" prior to the Customs Courts Act's passage and "again call into question whether a party before the Court could obtain full and complete relief." Reversing the order as Target requests would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation "over the inherent power" of the trade court under Article III of the Constitution, Judge Leo Gordon said.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. voluntarily dismissed its conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade. The case, involving the company's former counsel Daniel Pickard, now partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, was previously stayed pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission. Amsted earlier this month also dismissed the ITC matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the importer filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal (see 2307050052) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00316).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman will begin mediation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with three of her colleagues leading an investigation on her fitness to continue serving on the bench, on Aug. 3. Per a joint notice of continuation of deadline to file a report on mediation, the parties said that they set a date with Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed to preside over the mediation (see 2307110045). Griffith sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020 (Newman v. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
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.