Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir filed a corrected version of its opening brief in a countervailing duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court rejected the company's efforts to add new claims to its originally filed brief (see 2306300060). The government and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon fought against the effort to add new claims to the brief, claiming that it was an attempt to shoehorn arguments on the agency's new regulations concerning untimely submitted files. The new brief filed by TKT makes corrections requested by the clerk of the court in a case on the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in which the Commerce Department used adverse facts available due to a missed filing deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Court of International Trade erred by sustaining the Commerce Department’s conclusions regarding cost smoothing, cost reconciliation, and differential pricing in the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, respondent Marmem said in a July 10 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1877).
The Court of International Trade in a July 13 opinion dismissed a lawsuit from PrimeSource Building Products against President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products pursuant to the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of July 13 opinions dismissed two lawsuits, one from importer PrimeSource Building Products and the other from Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products, challenging President Donald Trump's move to expand the Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives." The order comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate after finding that the expansion, made beyond procedural time limits, was legal. Relying on its prior decision in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., the court said that a tariff move made outside these limits is permissible so long as it fits under the duties' original plan of action.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 opinion affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group in a case on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China. The two-page order from Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham was issued without an explanation of the ruling.
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 Commerce Department's decision to countervail glass subsidies on remand improperly relied on post hoc rationalization, plaintiff-appellant Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering said during July 10 oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).
Judge Todd Hughes at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during July 10 oral argument expressed doubt over antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's claim that the Commerce Department can make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test where normal value is based on constructed value. The judge referenced the Federal Circuit's past ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which found that cost-based PMS adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the 2014-15 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that a company unable to prove it has entries for the purposes of being granted a separate AD rate should not automatically be rescinded from the review (see 2305190060). While the court found unconvincing the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries, the judges did rule that exporter Ningbo Qixin did not establish that it had no shipments, even though the agency rejected a separate rate for the company since it couldn't verify any entries (Canadian Solar International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5 dismissed importer Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest suit concerning attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, in an injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. Amsted Rail filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal a few days prior in the suit that the Court of International Trade previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057).