Federal Circuit Rejects Importer's Stay Bid in Taiwanese Steel Nail AD Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied appellant PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a stay in a case on an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. opposed the stay, which would have stopped litigation until the resolution of Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., on the grounds that the stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" the appellant's desired outcome in Mid Continent (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In the review, Bonuts Hardware Logistics and Create Trading were tapped as the mandatory respondents. However, Bonuts did not respond to Commerce's questionnaires and Create said it didn't have any U.S. sales, leading to Pro-Team Coil replacing it as a respondent. Pro-Team also did not reply. Bonuts and Pro-Team were assigned an adverse facts available rate from a previous review, and the non-selected respondents' rate was found by weight-averaging the AFA rates. The appellants contested the use of the expected method. However, the Court of International Trade said the Commerce Department properly used the expected method to find the non-selected respondents' rate, leading to the appeal (see 2206170040).
At the Federal Circuit, PrimeSource requested the stay pending resolution of Mid Continent. There is no overlap in the issues of these two cases since Mid Continent is contesting the use of the Cohen's d statistical test as part of Commerce's differential pricing analysis, but PrimeSource argued the Mid Continent matter could render the AD order moot since the respondents could get a de minimis margin. The U.S. opposed the stay, telling the Federal Circuit that no need for a stay has been identified, "much less a pressing one," and that the claim that the court's and parties' resources will be conserved "is purely speculative" (see 2210190035).