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 issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

CBP did not misapply the substantial evidence standard in finding that importers American Pacific Plywood, U.S. Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood products from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 22 opinion made public June 30.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 30 order accepted the amended opening brief and addendum filed by Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines in an antidumping duty review. In submitting its amended brief, TKT submitted a version of its original opening brief with corrections sought by the clerk of the court and also a version with these corrections plus corrections additionally requested by the exporter. The appellate court accepted only the first form of these submissions (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) asked the Court of International Trade to stay a court order for CBP to reliquidate entries of its imported mixtures while the importer pursues an appeal of the relevant CIT decision, issued in May (see 2305260048). CIT had found the importer'ws frozen fruit mixtures classifiable under the basket tariff subheading 0811.90.80 pf the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5%, rather than under a duty-free classification under subheading 2106.90.98 as “[f]ood preparations not otherwise specified or included," as advocated by Nature's Touch.

Judge Pauline Newman should continue to be assigned new cases during an investigation into her fitness as a judge, she said in a request for an injunction filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia June 27. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Newman sought an injunction against a decision by the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit barring her from being assigned new cases, claiming that the ban assaults her "judicial independence" and arguing that it infringes on her due process rights and violates Congress’ “exclusive right to impeach and remove Article III judges” (Pauline Newman v. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

The government incorrectly claimed that there are two separate jurisdictional paths for contesting Enforce and Protect Act decisions, appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy Corp. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected importer PrimeSource Building Products' bid to stay the court's issuance of its mandate in a suit over President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto derivative products. The court ruled that the president legally imposed the tariffs, which were set beyond procedural time limits, and recently rejected PrimeSource's request for a reconsideration of the opinion (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 22 order denied a bid for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the suit on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark made the decision denying the petitioners, ruling that the mandate will be issued June 29 (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).