Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity

The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition defended the Commerce Department's decision to weight average, or "smooth," respondent Marmen's steel plate costs in the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

The Commerce Department's use of thresholds proposed by Dr. Jacob Cohen -- the creator of the Cohen's d test -- for evaluating the d statistic in the agency's analysis to detect "masked" dumping isn't line with "normal statistical practice," exporter SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Jan. 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 issued its mandate in a case on the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases. In the opinion, the appellate court sustained Commerce's remand results dropping the adjustment for two respondents to the 2018 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand (see 2312040025). The court said petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to distinguish the case from the holding in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., in which the court first ruled against the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).

Tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked for 6,000 more words for their opening brief after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected their bid to submit two separate briefs. The companies noted that they received the government's consent and there's "good cause" to expand the word count (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

The Commerce Department has not established an "irrebuttable presumption" of state control for exporters in nonmarket economies, antidumping duty petitioner the United Steelworkers labor union argued in a Jan. 5 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 5 granted a motion to dismiss an appeal of a countervailing duty suit from the U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. The court lifted the stay in the case and dismissed the case after also considering the "non-participation" of exporters POSCO and Hyundai Steel Co. and the South Korean government (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1576).

The U.S. swapped its principal counsel in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers. In a notice of substitution Jan. 3, the government said Christopher Berridge, DOJ trial attorney in the Commercial Litigation Branch, will replace Daniel Roland. In the case, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's exclusion of Siffron's dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049) (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).

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 South Korean government's provision of port usage rights to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is not a countervailable benefit since it is the repayment of a debt, Hyundai told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 opening brief. Because the port usage rights allowed Hyundai to "recoup its costs" from building the Incheon North Harbor port, the rights did not provide a "gift-like transfer of funds that provided an advantage or profit to Hyundai Steel," the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.