Plaintiff-appellants led by Carbon Activated Tianjin were not required to exhaust their arguments against the use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized System subheading 2708.10 to calculate a surrogate value for coal tar because Commerce used data from the subheading for the first time in the antidumping duty review's final results, counsel for Carbon Activated told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during March 7 oral arguments (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1298).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Court of International Trade erred in finding that importer Rimco was required to raise its claims that antidumping and countervailing duty rates violated the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment regarding excessive fines before the Commerce Department administratively, Rimco told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a March 8 reply brief (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 6 reactivated an appeal from U.S. Steel that had been on hold pending a bid to reconsider the underlying Court of International Trade decision (see 2211020073). CIT in February denied SeAH Steel's motion for reconsideration of its decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
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 2 deferred a U.S. motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case to the merits panel assigned to the case. The government wanted the case tossed because all the entries at issue had been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
Solar panel mounts made by China Custom Manufacturing do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a March 2 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade, judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the matter is "governed squarely" by the appellate court's ruling in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., which said a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product."
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a March 2 opinion upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that found solar panel mounts made by appellant China Custom Manufacturing do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham ruled that the matter is "governed squarely" by the Federal Circuit's ruling in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., where the court said that a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product." CCM had admitted that its mounts are parts of its solar panel mounting system.
The Commerce Department failed in its obligation to calculate an accurate rate for a Kazakh exporter in a countervailing duty investigation when it unjustifiably rejected the exporter's questionnaire response, despite the response being only two hours late, the exporter, Tau-Ken Temir, said in the opening brief of its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 order stayed a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department brought by Amsted Rail Co. involving its former counsel, pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Gary Katzmann said that resolution of the related case will likely be controlling on the issues in the present action (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Feb. 28 in a case in which it upheld the Commerce Department's finding that it had enough industry support to start antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India. The appellate court said that Commerce legally held that the term "producer" didn't include quartz surface product fabricators and that the agency backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via the six-factor production-related activities test (see 2301050044) (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1077).