On appeal, the U.S. and a petitioner each defended the Court of International Trade’s acceptance of its thrice-remanded (see 2401190037) countervailing duty calculation for Russian phosphate fertilizer exporters (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-00117, -20, -21).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The Court of International Trade properly rejected the Commerce Department's decision to set the separate rate respondents' antidumping duty margin by averaging a zero percent rate and an adverse facts available rate, exporter Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief July 17, the exporter said Commerce failed to support its use of the averaged rates and that the agency ultimately arrived at the correct determination: a zero percent margin for the separate rate companies (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
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.
Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has the authority to reinstate the Commerce Department's original determination attributing subsidies received by an exporter's cross-owed input supplier to the exporter itself (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 15 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty review on Indian frozen warmwater shrimp after it affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to sustain the Commerce Department's use of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value (see 2406070034). The decision was issued without an accompanying opinion. The trade court said petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee failed to flesh out its claim that, since ZASF's Vietnamese sales were not actually for consumption in Vietnam, Commerce couldn't use them to set normal value (see 2212070036) (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty investigation on ripe olives from Spain. In its decision, the appellate court said the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said that the Commerce Department shall receive "considerable discretion" in determining whether such demand is substantially dependent due to the general nature of the terms "substantially dependent" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 15 said that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require the distribution of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the CDSOA only includes reference to interest that is "earned on" AD/CVD and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order, and that this interest is the only type to be deposited into the statute's "special accounts."
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a July 11 oral argument probed the government and parties to an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case on its standard of review in the scope case. Judge Sharon Prost said at the outset that the court is "being very careful" in terms of what it says on standard of review issues in "light of all of the recent opinions and litigation concerning standard of review" in administrative law issues (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9 unsealed a May 29 order compelling Judge Pauline Newman to show cause for why she shouldn't continue to be subject to a suspension from hearing new cases in light of her continued refusal to cooperate with her colleagues' investigation of her fitness to continue serving on the bench. The suspension is set to expire in September.