AD Petitioner Blasts Steel Nail Exporter's Bid to 'Avoid Review' in Suit on Missed Filing Deadline
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should deny Oman Fasteners' bid to dismiss Mid Continent's appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion which consolidated a motion for an injunction on antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment, saying the motion to dismiss is a “revisionist version of the record and applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent” and isn't accurate, Mid Continent said in a reply brief June 6 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
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.
Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire objected to respondent Oman Fasteners' bid to dismiss Mid Continent's appeal of a CIT opinion, saying the bid should be rejected. The company also said Oman Fasteners’ move to dismiss the CIT opinion, which consolidated a motion for an injunction on AD cash deposits and a motion for judgment and granted both, is a “revisionist version of the record and applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent” and isn't accurate (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
While Oman Fasteners argued that Mid Continent does not have standing to appeal the decision barring the collection of 154.33% AD cash deposits related to an AD review of steel nails from Oman, Mid Continent said it has standing because it's the petitioner in the underlying proceeding and Oman Fasteners' competitor. Because the company would be "adversely affected or aggrieved" by the CIT decision, Mid Continent said it has both Article III and statutory standing to appeal the injunction issued by CIT and Oman Fasteners' bid "to avoid review by this Court" lacks merit.
Mid Continent used the brief to attack CIT Judge M. Miller Baker's consolidation of a motion for an injunction on AD cash deposits and a motion for judgment -- and granting of both -- as "based on a one-sided, contested record where the parties were unable to fully brief pertinent issues and information," labeling the decision "clearly unreasonable" and an abuse of discretion. In his ruling, Baker said the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available related to Oman Fasteners missing a filing deadline was an abuse of discretion and was not only to grant an injunction against the cash deposits but to remand the case back to Commerce (see 2302280040).
Now in a battle over the right of the petitioner to appeal this ruling and on the merits of the opinion, Mid Continent claims that Oman Fasteners also cannot shed its "legal obligation" to clear the four-factor test needed to get an injunction from the trade court merely by focusing solely on its irreparable harm claims. The exporter said that if the injunction were not granted, the results could ruin its business. Mid Continent said these claims are "speculative and do not meet the stringent standard regardless."
The petitioner concluded that Oman Fasteners also, in effect, "wraps itself in the Trade Court's decision" and argues that the Federal Circuit should ignore the court's abuse of discretion. Oman Fasteners "distorts the record and misconstrues statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent, attempts to eliminate Commerce’s broad discretion to enforce its deadlines, and concocts new requirements and restrictions governing" Commerce's authority to use AFA and the AFA rate the agency can pick, the brief said. Oman Fasteners' "arguments do not comport with applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial precedent, and should be rejected."