Countervailing duty review respondent Uttam Galva Steels impeded the Commerce Department's countervailing duty administrative review by omitting information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry, defendant-appellees California Steel Industries and Steel Dynamics told the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 11 reply brief urging the appellate court to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision in the case (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the Commerce Department can calculate a separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate appeared in a similar case at the Court of International Trade. In a Jan. 11 notice of supplemental authority, defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Federal Circuit opinion "once again affirmed" that the law allows Commerce to include rates based on AFA in the calculation of a separate rate if all the mandatory respondents have a zero, de minimis or AFA rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).
The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't strike down President Donald Trump's extension of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines since the tariffs had a positive impact on the U.S. industry, The American Steel Nail Coalition said in Jan. 10 proposed amicus brief. The coalition asked the court for leave to file the amicus brief in a bid to broaden the defense of the president's tariff action. The proposed amicus further said that this issue has already been decided following the Federal Circuit's decision in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 upheld the Commerce Department's rates for the separate rate respondents in an antidumping review on diamond sawblades from China. In the review, Commerce calculated the rate by averaging the adverse facts available and zero percent rates of the two respondents. Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said this move was valid since Commerce was authorized by the statute to rely on AFA in finding the separate rate and that the rate was supported by evidence that the separate rates all trended upwards over the past administrative reviews.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold the Commerce Department's finding that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, Shelter Forest and others said in a response brief. Shelter Forest argued that the appellate court should uphold the Court of International Trade's ruling that Shelter Forest's plywood wasn't later-developed merchandise and the company wasn't guilty of evasion (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Department of Justice's opening brief in the PrimeSource appeal to not be in compliance with court rules. In the Jan. 6 notice of non-compliance, the appellate court said that the caption provided on the document doesn't follow the official caption provided by the clerk. DOJ has five business days to fix the filing. The high-profile case concerns the president's ability to expand Section 232 national security tariffs to goods beyond those specified in the Commerce secretary's report to the president at a time that is beyond procedural deadlines. In the brief, DOJ argued that the statutes allows for such a move, in line with the Federal Circuit's opinion in a recent ruling on Section 232 (see 2201040024) (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
Section 232 allows the president to expand tariff action beyond procedural time limits laid out in the law, as he did when he expanded the tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivatives over a year after the tariffs were initially imposed, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 3 brief. Relying heavily on a recent CAFC opinion on an increase of tariffs on Turkish steel, DOJ said the president is allowed to expand Section 232 tariffs to products beyond the ones laid out in the original commerce secretary report as long as it's part of the original "plan of action" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
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 granted antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's bid for an extension of time to request a full-court rehearing of a key decision. The petitioner now has until Feb. 8 to ask the full Federal Circuit to reconsider a decision which found that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an AD respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test for the purposes of calculating normal value (see 2112100039). Petitions for en banc rehearings were originally due Jan. 9. Welspun won the extension after characterizing the appeal as one that is "critically important" to the petitioner and many other domestic producers of goods subject to ADD orders (see 2112290027) (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation into quartz surface products from India since it didn't have the requisite industry support, importer M S International told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Dec. 20 opening brief. Urging the appellate court to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that found that Commerce legally interpreted what constitutes a "producer" of QSPs, MSI argued that Commerce erred by excluding fabricators from the industry support calculation (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).