The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).
The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must review a three-judge panel's decision finding that China Custom Manufacturing Inc.'s solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. The exporter said that full court rehearing is needed to "secure and maintain uniformity" of the appellate court's prior decision regarding the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's motion to expedite briefing in an appeal of a Court of International Trade decision to grant an injunction against AD cash deposits. Judge Kara Stoll said that Mid Continent can continue to self-expedite its own briefs, but that it "has not made a sufficient showing to shorten the time for" exporter and appellee Oman Fasteners (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
A bid for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade decision permitting four U.S. steel companies to intervene in an ITC case (see 2303150072) is an attempt to relitigate the issue, and fails to satisfy the "high" standard for reconsideration, the U.S. steel companies said in a reply brief. The companies, Cleveland-Cliifs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, said that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to point to any specific legal authority for reconsideration of the intervention decision (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The U.S. cannot escape Congress' plain meaning in requiring CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, "no matter how many new arguments DOJ throws into its brief on appeal," appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ tries to "rewrite history," seeing as its interpretation "flies in the face of the statute's command to distribute 'all interest,'" the brief said (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
A recent appellate court ruling requiring the Commerce Department to pick more than one mandatory respondent in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings doesn’t apply to all cases, the agency said. Commerce said "case-specific circumstances" free it of that obligation.