The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Oct. 8 decision clarifying the cross-owned input provider regulations also is applicable in a Turkish rebar case before CAFC, a petitioner said in an Oct. 13 letter (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
Tapered roller bearing exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing and importer C&U Americas filed a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 14, arguing, among other things, that the U.S. failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's selection of Romanian firm Timken Romania as part of the surrogate value calculations. Tainai added that Commerce illegally decided to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from the company's U.S. price in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).
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 International Trade Commission doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to antidumping duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Alan Lourie and Tiffany Cunningham said the relevant statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i) "does not demand a determination focused on the time after the antidumping duty order issues."
Arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to exclude its in-transit mattresses from its affiliated importer’s constructed export price, exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia said petitioners “overstate their case” that data anomalies rendered the department’s choice unreasonable (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.
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.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed counsel for importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination and the government during oral argument on Oct. 7 in the importer's customs classification suit on its notebooks with calendars. During the argument, Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Chen and William Bryson grappled with whether the court is bound by its 2010 ruling in Mead v. U.S. and whether the goods are properly classified as calendars or diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).
The Commerce Department erred in using likely selling prices as facts otherwise available for antidumping duty respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's cost of production, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 6. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna held that where there's a gap to fill on the record, "there must be a reasonable relationship between the selected facts otherwise available and the gap to be filled."
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week for permission to take part in the oral argument in a case on former Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission. Dhuey noted that a motions panel at the CAFC previously said his right to participate in oral argument shall be decided by the merits panel, and that the now-assigned merits panel has yet to issue a decision on the amicus' right to take part in the hearing (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).