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.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Aug. 29, following its ruling that the Commerce Department can use total adverse facts available to calculate the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review on steel nails from China. The appellate court said that while the law bars the use of total AFA when calculating the all-others rate in AD investigations, it makes no mention of AD reviews, so the question is deferred to Commerce (see 2207060027). The appellate court said Commerce was right to use partial AFA on respondent Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products due to its main supplier's transshipment scheme (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 opinion. Reversing a decision from the Court of International Trade, Judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency hasn't shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 26 opinion rejected the plaintiff-appellants' appeal seeking to establish that the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. The appellate court previously rejected this claim in Hyundai Steel v. U.S. The appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe Company, sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing that its case appeals an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel matter challenged an administrative review. The Federal Circuit failed to see how this would result in a different outcome and ruled against Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 26 opinion rejected another group of appellants' appeal seeking to establish that the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when finding normal value. The appellate court previously rejected this claim in Hyundai Steel v. U.S. The appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe Co., sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing that its case appeals an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel matter challenged an administrative review.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.
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.