The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 9 order gave the U.S. more time to file its reply brief in a case involving imports seized as "drug paraphernalia." The government now has until Feb. 10 to submit its response. Root Sciences filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines. The agency didn't notify Root of the seizure but instead sent the importer an automated notice that the goods had been deemed excluded from entry. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after filing its case at the Court of International Trade (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges questioned the limits of the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty orders during Jan. 9 oral argument in a case over whether solar panel roof mounts fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China. While Judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham questioned plaintiff-appellant China Custom Manufacturing's contention that its solar mounts are a finished product even though they are incorporated into a larger downstream product, the judges further probed the U.S. claims against this point with equal vigor (China Custom Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1345).
Two Court of International Trade decisions cited by plaintiff-appellants in a scope case as supplemental authorities need not be considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, defendant-appellee Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in a Jan. 4 letter to the appellate court. The CIT decisions are not "pertinent and significant" because they are "not binding on this court" and "are simply further decisions from the same dissenting judge" at the trade court, the appellee said (China Custom Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Commerce Department properly found it had enough industry support to kick off the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products (QSP) from India, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Jan. 5 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's ruling, Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Sharon Prost ruled that Commerce permissibly found the term "producer" did not include QSP fabricators and backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via its six-factor production-related activities test.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Jan. 4 in a case denying a group of U.S. steel companies the right to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The mandate comes after the court denied the steel companies' rehearing bid over the decision (see 2212280017). In the case, the Court of International Trade and later the Federal Circuit said that a proposed intervenor must have a legally protectable interest in the transaction at issue, have a direct relationship with the litigation where the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct judgment, or show its interests are not adequately expressed by the government. The courts ruled the steel companies failed on all three fronts.
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 in a Dec. 29 order granted the U.S. motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act appeal to the extent the motion must be filed within 14 days. The U.S. asked for leave to file the motion seeing as all the entries at issue have been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 30 order gave plaintiff-appellants in a countervailing duty case a two-week extension to file their opening brief, setting the due date at Jan. 17. The appellants, Tau-Ken Temir, Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, and Tau-Ken Samruk, requested the extension -- the second of its kind for the opening brief -- since their counsel, Peter Koenig of Squire Patton, got hit with "two new unanticipated large questionnaire responses due at the" Commerce Department and "two new briefs due at" CIT since the first extension request. Koenig said more time is needed to coordinate a single brief among the three appellants, especially given that one is a foreign government agency (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 28 dismissed an appeal from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline over Section 232 exclusion requests. The appellants asked for the case to be dismissed after CBP dropped the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the entries at issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a set of domestic steel companies' bid for a rehearing of the court's denial of its bid to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.