Counsel for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing resubmitted its entry of appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 23, attempting to bring its filing in line with court rules. The appellate court previously found that the notice was not in compliance with court rules since the filing party, Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, didn't have an electronic filing account (see 2112160069). In the updated filing, Steven Gordon was listed as principal counsel for Royal Brush (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 27 ruled that CBP cannot use "bypass" liquidations when considering prior customs treatment. The appellate court held that the Court of International Trade erred when it took these bypass liquidations into its consideration of treatment previously afforded importer Kent International's children's bicycle seats (see 2111030031). Remanding the case to CIT, a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit, though, upheld the trade court's finding that there was no de facto "established and uniform practice" regarding the customs classification of kids' bike seats. The mandate awarded $127.02 in costs to appellant Kent International (Kent International v. United States, Fed. Circ. #21-1065, CIT #15-00135).
The Commerce Department failed to justify its reliance on a third-country company's financial statements for calculating constructed value in an antidumping duty review despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that called that reliance into question, the Court of International Trade said. Remanding Commerce's finding for the third time in a Dec. 22 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce did not adequately distinguish the review from a case in which the company's financial statements were found to be unsuitable since there was evidence of a subsidy.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation of steel nails from Oman. The second remand results had been filed in response to a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that said Commerce didn't adequately explain its reliance on a financial statement from Hitech Fastener Manufacturer (Thailand) Co. -- a third-country company -- to calculate constructed-value profit since Commerce didn't adequately consider whether Hitech had received countervailable subsidies. CIT Judge Mark Barnett found Commerce's decision to stick with Hitech's financial statement wasn't in compliance with the Federal Circuit.
Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the notice of appearance for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's counsel in the company's appeal of an evasion finding to not be in compliance with the court's rules. Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, the attorney listed on Royal Brush's Entry of Appearance, had not registered for an electronic filer account with the Federal Circuit's filing system. The form must be resubmitted once Oleynik has an electronic filing account, the notice said (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
In its comments on the Commerce Department's remand results, antidumping review petitioner Nucor Tubular grappled with a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion rejecting particular market situation adjustments for the sales-below-cost test. Arguing that since this decision is not yet binding as the mandate has not been issued, the Court of International Trade can still consider Nucor's position and rule in favor of the PMS adjustment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT #20-00026).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that two entries of appearance for Department of Justice attorney Robert Kiepura are not in compliance with court rules, the Federal Circuit said in two Dec. 15 notices. The entry documents were filed after the cases had been assigned to a merits panel, so in order for them to be properly added to the cases, Kiepura must first file a motion for leave to appear, the appellate court said. One case is appealing a July 2020 Court of International Trade decision that upheld the Commerce Department's termination of an old suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Confederacion de Asociaciones v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2232). The other is challenging a September 2020 decision dismissing a challenge to the final antidumping duty determination on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a splash when it said that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping review respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2112100039). This opinion surfaced in two Court of International Trade cases also contesting Commerce's PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test via a pair of supplemental authority notices (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consl. #20-03868) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).
The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found building materials company Bruskin International's opening and reply briefs to not be in compliance with the court's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 10 notice. The paper copies of the briefs were not printed single-sided, contrary to court rules. The court does permit, though, the double-sided printing of appendices. Further, the paper copies of the reply brief had an incorrect yellow cover since the cover of the appellant's reply brief must be gray, the notice said (M S International, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).