The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade in light of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the agency cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping or countervailing duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. Filing an unopposed motion for remand Feb. 14, Commerce said the decision, YC Rubber v. U.S., "may implicate Commerce's respondent selection determinations at issue in this litigation" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03885).
The Court of International Trade correctly held that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 does not require CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. argued in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. U.S, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to find that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s tires do not qualify for an exclusion to the antidumping duty order on light truck spare tires despite the petitioner originally agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires. Judge Stephen Vaden said that it is not his job "to save Cheng Shin from itself," given that the negotiated exclusion required that the tires must be "designed and marketed exclusively" as temporary-use light truck tires, and Cheng Shin submitted evidence showing that its tires were not exclusively designed and marketed as such.
World Trade Organization Deputy Director-General Angela Ellard spoke about a range of trade issues this week, including the fisheries deal struck at the 12th Ministerial Conference and ongoing reform efforts surrounding the dispute settlement panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should grant a U.S. motion for more time to file its reply brief in an antidumping duty scope ruling challenge, the government argued in a Feb. 10 brief responding to arguments from appellant Sigma Corp. opposing the extension request. In its brief, Sigma said the extension bid could affect a parallel False Claims Act action at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. But even Signma concedes that the 9th Circuit is considering waiting for the Federal Circuit's decision before settling the False Claims Act matter, which indicates that the Federal Circuit should grant the extension request, the U.S. said (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Court of International Trade in a paperless order Feb. 13 denied plaintiff Oman Fasteners' bid to fix mistakes in its motion to take judicial notice in an antidumping duty case. AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire opposed the motion on the grounds it was the second time in under a month the exporter asked the trade court for leave to address problems in one of its briefs. Judge M. Miller Baker issued the order (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department should have considered antidumping duty respondent Antique Marbonite's untimely filed extension request, which led to the rejection of its second supplemental questionnaire, since extraordinary circumstances warranted a retroactive extension of the deadline, three importers argued in a Feb. 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce also erred by failing to afford the plaintiff its "second chance" opportunity, given that Antique intended to meet the deadline and "promptly" told the agency it needed an extension "when it realized that it [had] not done so," plaintiffs Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance claimed (Arizona Tile v. United States, CIT # 23-00019).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiff-appellant Sigma Corp. opposed the United States' bid for 58 more days to file a reply brief in an antidumping duty scope ruling case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opposition on Feb. 9, Sigma said that in a normal case it would have no problem consenting to an extension, but that this is not a normal case. Further delay would prejudice the appellant since the disposition of this case "has ramifications beyond this Court's immediate ruling," given its effect on a separate False Claims Act proceeding over the imports at issue here, Sigma said (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department uses "made-up 'exclusions'" from the scope of certain antidumping and countervailing duty orders that, even if they were "otherwise permitted, which they are not," fail to find support in the authorities the agency relies on, AD petitioner Magnum Magnetics argued in a Feb. 6 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner railed against Commerce's refusal to perform a (k)(3) analysis of the scope even though it relied on a single evidential element from a (k)(3) analysis in its (k)(1) analysis (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).