The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned whether it should grant the government's voluntary remand motion in an antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in light of CAFC's decisions in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. During oral argument held Dec. 1, Judges Richard Taranto, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham appeared ready to grant the motion, asking the parties what specifically the remand order should say (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be closed on Dec. 24, starting at 1 p.m. ET, and on Dec. 31, also starting at 1 p.m. ET, the court announced. All electronic filing deadlines will remain in effect, and electronic case filing will remain available through CM/ECF, the court said. Nonelectric filings received after 1 p.m. on these days will be treated as timely filed "if received by the next business day," in line with CAFC Rule 26(a)(3). Under this rule, if the clerk's office is inaccessible, the time for filing is extended to the first accessible day that isn't a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
Petitioner Magneisa Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee on Nov. 26 further supported its motion to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expedite its appeal of a scope ruling involving the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. The petitioner said the U.S. industry faces "severe competitive harm" from entries of the bricks at issue, and expedition is required to "limit foreign importers’ ability to flood the market with refractory bricks at unfairly traded (and injurious) prices" (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1160).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 25 denied the government's motion to cancel oral argument in a case involving the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect masked dumping. In a per curiam order, the court said the parties "should plan to focus on" the government's motion for a voluntary remand "at argument" (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
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. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 21 for a voluntary remand in a case involving a challenge to the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in light of the CAFC's decision in Marmen v. U.S., invalidating the agency's approach to the test. The government asked that oral argument in the case, which is currently set for Dec. 1, be canceled (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
Petitioner Wheatland Tube Company opposed Nov. 17 the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in an antidumping duty scope case on dual-stenciled pipe, saying that the “entire house of cards on which the Remand Order was built has now collapsed” since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Court of International Trade ruling on another suit (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).
AD/CVD petitioner Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to speed up its appeal on the Commerce Department's decision to exclude seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. The petitioner said the relief it's seeking is "modest," and that a sped-up briefing schedule is needed to "prevent competitive harms" to the "domestic refractory-brick industry" that should be subject to "significant AD/CVD duties" (Fedmet Resources v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1160).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 19 dismissed Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's second case challenging the results of his April 2018 customs broker license exam. Chae previously litigated the results of the exam in an earlier case before the Court of International Trade and CAFC, ultimately coming just one correctly answered question shy of a passing grade. After the Supreme Court declined to take up his first case, Chae filed another lawsuit to challenge one question on the test. The Federal Circuit dismissed the second lawsuit, finding that Chae should have brought any additional claims against the question in his first case.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.