The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by Prime Time Commerce. In June, the appellate court ruled that Prime Time failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide antidumping margin (see 2206280038). The Federal Circuit further ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one. The case concerned the administrative review of the AD order on cased pencils from China (Prime Time Commerce v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1783).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Commerce Department should accept an exporter's evidence of entries to establish a separate rate in an antidumping duty case, or else conclude that it had no shipments and not review the company, the exporter, Ningbo Qixin, argued in an Aug. 18 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Canadian Solar International, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that called into question the use of first sale treatment for imported goods involving non-market economy countries (see 2208110060) is largely seen as providing a welcome relief to importers, several law firms said. "For those importers enjoying the benefits of lower declared values and duties, particularly from China in light of Section 301 tariffs, there is no longer a need for concern now that, on appeal, the court has given first sale a nod," Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman said on a podcast. The original CIT decision (Meyer Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1392) raised some concerns for the future of first sale treatment (see 2104200028).
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 five-year statute of limitations for fraudulent civil penalty enforcement action in the Court of International Trade might begin to run from the date the government is sufficiently on notice rather than on the date of documented confirmation, Greenlight Organic, Inc. and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued in an Aug. 12 motion for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to decide the statute of limitations issue (U.S. v. Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh, CIT #17-00031).
Minor issues in reporting home market sales in an antidumping duty administrative review don’t rise to the level that would justify an adverse facts available margin for an exporter’s large power transformers from South Korea, nor does the exporter’s purported lack of cooperation in a previous year’s administrative review give Commerce leeway to apply AFA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Aug. 11.
The Court of International Trade was wrong to consider China's non-market economy status when analyzing whether to grant first sale treatment, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Aug. 11 ruling. The decision overturns and remands a 2021 CIT ruling that said that first sale treatment shouldn't apply for cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through a Chinese middleman because China is a NME.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not grant a rehearing petition to Hitachi in an antidumping duty case, argue both the U.S. government and defendant-appellant Hyundai in two separate Aug. 9 responses at CAFC (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 8 opinion held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price. Judges Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes also ruled that Commerce's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans.