Oil country tubular goods exporter Husteel Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it does not intend to participate in an appeal over the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping. Husteel made the declaration in response to the court's notice to the company regarding its counsel's entry of appearance and certificate of interest. The appeal was recently reactivated following a Court of International Trade decision upholding the agency's use of the d test (see 2303070042) (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Congress intended for subsidies given to "disparate processed agricultural products" to be countervailable under countervailing duty laws, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments from three Spanish olive exporters against the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent finding" in the Spanish olives CVD investigation, the coalition said that Commerce "responsibly interpreted the statutory language broadly" and in line with statutory intent (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
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 on March 15 rejected a textile company's expedited motion for a temporary injunction that would have required CBP to return its entries of imported coated fabric to unliquidated status or suspend the company's protests. Judge Evan Wallach said the company, Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, "failed to persuade the court of the likelihood that jurisdiction under" Section 1581(a) would be manifestly inadequate, establishing jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), as claimed by Berger (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 dismissed a case on whether importer Root Sciences' cannabis cure extract recovery machines should be seized as drug paraphernalia after CBP and Root agreed to a settlement (see 2303070060). CBP agreed to release the merchandise to the importer, given the Court of International Trade's ruling in Eteros Technologies USA v. U.S., in which the court said that the U.S. can't seize or forfeit imports that are federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" but whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal at the state level (see 2209210034). Root agreed to drop the suit as part of the settlement (Root Sciences v. U.S., Fed Cir. # 22-1795).
Exporter China Custom Manufacturing will file a motion for a rehearing and seek en banc review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding the company's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, George Tuttle, counsel for CCM, told Trade Law Daily (China Custom Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham held that President Donald Trump's Proclamation 9705 imposing the duties made clear the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. The appellate court also clarified that this ruling applies only to Proclamation 9705 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two mandates for two recent opinions, one that upheld the Commerce Department's rejection of an untimely filing in an antidumping duty case and another that revoked a countervailing duty order (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1329) (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1408).
Federal judges last week questioned the Commerce Department's policies on the initiation of antidumping duty reviews for exporters with no entries of subject merchandise, asking why Commerce could continue an AD review if there were no entries on the record (Canadian Solar International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).