The Court of International Trade abused its discretion by combining a motion for a preliminary injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment on the agency record (see 2302280040), AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge M. Miller Baker committed "multiple legal and factual errors" in his opinion, issuing the judgment on a record developed via "limited discovery" and displaying multiple errors on the merits, the petitioner claimed (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 4,000 more words to file in its response brief in an appeal of the Commerce Department's finding that Vandewater Internaitonal's steel branch outlets are within the scope of an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings. The government said it needs 18,000 words instead of 14,000 words to address the "volume of information and arguments in the two opening briefs," which total over 22,000 words, and due to the "posture of this appeal and the arguments that appellants make," which require the U.S. to address the "complex procedural history." DOJ added that the other parties already consented to its request for a higher word count (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to find that importer SMA Surface's Twilight product does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 12. Commerce said that since SMA Surfaces submitted pictures of only a part of its Twilight slab, it was not able to verify that the product meets the criteria of the exclusion, which requires that there be a one centimeter glass piece within three inches of another one centimeter glass piece across the surface of the product (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT # 21-00399).
The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision through evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities.
Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods CBP seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled April 11. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 again sent back the Commerce Department's application of an adverse facts available rate to countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in the sixth administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani said that Risen provided enough gap-filling information related to 95% of its sales to cover the Chinese government's failure to explain the EBCP.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally found that steel plate cost fluctuations in the production of utility scale wind towers were unrelated to the physical characteristics of the finished wind towers, antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While Commerce said its decision to weight-average Dongkuk's reported steel plate costs for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) was needed to "mitigate the cost differences unrelated to the product physical characteristics," Dongkuk said this approach was not backed by enough evidence (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).