The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the principle of stare decisis requires the appellate court to sustain the legality of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
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 Clerk's Office and Circuit Library of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be unavailable for in-person public services and support May 14. The court said nonelectronic filings and materials can be deposited in the night drop box on H Street NW, located between Vermont Avenue and 15th Street NW, in Washington, D.C., though electronic filing will remain available.
The Clerk's Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 announced that it will nix the live chat feature on its website. The Clerk's Office said parties will still be able to call the office at (202) 275-8000 or reach out via the Contact Us page "during normal operating hours."
The Commerce Department was wrong to deduct Section 301 duties from an exporter’s U.S. price as part of its antidumping duty calculation, that exporter said May 3 in defense of an earlier motion for judgment. It said Section 301 duties aren’t “normal import duties,” but rather remedial “special” duties that statute requires be included in export price calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
The presumption of foreign state control in antidumping duty cases doesn't disappear after the exporter presents "minimal contradictory evidence," the government said in a reply brief on May 1 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Contrary to claims made by exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co., the government said, the Commerce Department "has long required respondents to demonstrate autonomy with respect to" all four criteria used to assess freedom from foreign state control, even for companies only minority-owned by a government entity (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
A Chinese brick exporter fought back April 29 against opposition to its motion for judgment by the U.S. (see 2402130053) and domestic producers (see 2403120068), saying that its products weren't circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China because the products are actually magnesia alumina graphite bricks, which are duty-free. The Commerce Department is “cherry-picking” evidence from prior scope rulings to prove otherwise, it said (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 29 issued its mandate in a case on the tariff classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops. In March, the court said the products are not "parts" of harvesting machinery but in fact are "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 (see 2403070047). The court clarified that when an item is "consumable," such as "bullets in a gun, staples in a stapler, or film in a camera," it's not meant solely for use within the machine just because it's used exclusively by the machine. Here, the net wrap is similarly "never a part of the baling machine" since the output product is the net wrap packaged around a hay bale (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
The U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. defended the Commerce Department's use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said the steel company said Commerce properly identified a gap in the record stemming from Salzgitter's failure to submit manufacturer information for 28,000 of its sales from an affiliated reseller, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).