A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 18 in an antidumping case on whether the Commerce Department can pick just one mandatory respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review. In an August 2022 decision, the appellate court said that Commerce cannot use only one respondent in this context, finding that doing so cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). After the opinion was issued, the government asked for, and was given, more time to file a petition for rehearing (see 2211210070). The rehearing motion never came, leading to the Federal Circuit's mandate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to an AD order's revocation. The trade court said the Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when enforcing the filing deadline. The appellate court affirmed without an opinion.
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.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Jan. 12 oral arguments expressed skepticism over claims from antidumping respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. (ZMC) in its bid to rebut the presumption of government control and win a separate rate in an antidumping duty review. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmy Reyna and Todd Hughes questioned whether ZMC's ownership structure could ever be truly free of government control, calling it "implausible." At another point in the arguments, DOJ attorney Kelly Krystyniak said that given the combination of China's corporate laws and ZMC's ownership, it may be impossible to rebut the presumption of government control and that ZMC has no inherent right to be able to rebut it (Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2257).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard claims over whether Krakatu POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was an authority or directed by an authority for the purposes of a countervailing duty investigation. During oral arguments Jan. 11 before Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll, counsel for CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition, Kenertec Power System and the U.S. also argued over whether Indonesia's Rediscount Loan Program was an upstream subsidy and thus countervailable (Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03687).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 order stayed the due date for plaintiff-appellants' reply brief in a countervailing duty case, pending the resolution of the appellants' motion seeking another 900 words for their reply. The appellants, the province of Quebec, Marmen, Marmen Energie, Marmen Energy and the government of Canada, claimed good cause existed to give them the additional words since the U.S. argued that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies relating to the specificity of the Quebec On-The-Job Training Tax Credit in addition to the four underlying issues in the case (Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
The International Trade Commission did not settle a "critical ambiguity" when defining the domestic like product in an investigation on fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico that found the imports did not harm the domestic industry, argued petitioner Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) in Jan. 10 oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1176).
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, during Jan. 10 oral arguments, heard disputes over whether the court should follow the Court of International Trade in setting aside Section 232 national security tariffs on derivative products made of steel and aluminum. Seeking to differentiate the appeal from the Federal Circuit's decision in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said the president can take certain Section 232 action beyond procedural deadlines, counsel for plaintiff-appellants PrimeSource Building Products, Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products said the matter is different for derivative goods, while the government said Transpacific has settled the matter (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).