The U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability in a Feb. 7 decision denied U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman's request for a review of the appellate court's decision to suspend her from hearing cases for a year, sustaining the sanction.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Seven plywood importers will not participate in the appeal of a case on the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood from China after participating at the Court of International Trade. The companies -- Canusa Wood Products, Concannon Corp., Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Holland Southwest International, Liberty Woods International, Northwest Hardwood and USPly -- told the court of their decision in a statement last week (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258)
The U.S. on Feb. 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for another 60 days to file its opening brief in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China. All parties consented to the request (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 29 issued its mandate in a customs case on the classification of textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers. The appellate court said the gloves fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 as gloves and not as articles of plastic under heading 3926 (see 2312060028). Importer Magid argued that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casing, precluded classification as textiles and apparel of Section XI (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1793).
Exporter Oman Fasteners asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 29 to dismiss petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision imposing an injunction on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. The exporter said the injunction is no longer active because the Commerce Department completed the next administrative review of the AD order, so there is no live controvery in the case (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
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 on Jan. 26 gave the U.S. another 14 days to file its response to a group of solar panel exporters' bid for rehearing of the appellate court's ruling that President Donald Trump properly revoked a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The government has until Feb. 16 to submit its brief, which was invited by the court following the rehearing motion (see 2401220027) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The U.S. swapped out its lead counsel in an antidumping duty case brought by importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after its counsel, Eric Singley, left DOJ. The government said in a Jan. 26 notice that it will slot DOJ attorney Kelly Geddes into the lead counsel role. Jin Tiong and Repwire filed the appeal to contest the government's finding that Jin Tiong wasn't eligible for a separate AD rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China because it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case led by American Pacific Plywood to address the Federal Circuit's holding in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it with access to confidential business information in the investigation (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).