The Court of International Trade substituted its own judgment for the Commerce Department's when it overruled the agency's rejection of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales as third country sales in an AD review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.
A domestic steel company is challenging the Commerce Department's finding in a countervailing duty administrative review that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit. CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. also argued in its complaint at the Court of International Trade that Commerce was required verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).
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).