Big box retailer Target Corp. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for more time to file its reply brief in its suit against the Court of International Trade's decision to order reliquidation of Target's entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. While the brief is currently due on Jan. 5, 2024, Target asked if it could submit its arguments on Jan. 19 "due largely to the circumstances of the holidays" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
A ban on imports of Apple watches is on hold, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 27 granted Apple's bid for an interim stay of the International Trade Commission's import ban in a patent dispute concerning the watches' medical monitoring technology (Apple Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).
The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) to use 3,135 additional words in its reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakstan. TKT asked for 14,000 words, twice the original allowance of 7,000, but the appellate court granted it the use of 10,135 words amid opposition from CVD petitioners (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
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 in a Dec. 18 text-only order granted the government's request for 60 more days to file their opening brief in a case on whether the statute of limitations had passed on an action seeking to collect on a customs bond from surety firm American Home Assurance Co. (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).
The Court of International Trade wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 15 reply brief. Defending the trade court's dismissal of retail giant Target's suit against a court-ordered reliquidation of Target entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate, the U.S. distinguished the spat from Cemex v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit barred reliquidation (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 denied requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. In its opinion, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents (see 2310230013). Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration analysis after the court rejected its original preferential rate analysis in 2019 (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).