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 Court of International Trade in a text-only order on Feb. 10 denied plaintiff a motion by Archroma U.S. for leave to file a supplemental complaint since it failed to tell the court whether defendant-intervenor Teh Fong Min (TFM) International Co. consented to the move. The case concerns the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's decision to revoke the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Tawain. Archroma moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint to add two additional allegations over the ITC's move terminating the second sunset review of the AD order. While the plaintiff said it had the support of the U.S., it didn't indicate whether the defendant-intervenor consented, leading the trade court to deny the motion (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT # 22-00354).
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).
A proposed remand order that would force the International Trade Commission to reconsider a 2021 final injury determination in an antidumping duty case on methionine from Spain and Japan is merely an attempt to have the Commission "reweigh the facts ... to reach a negative determination," the ITC said in a Feb. 9 response to a draft remand order (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 8 order allowed the U.S. to change its primary counsel in an antidumping duty case. The government moved to go with Margaret Jantzen instead of Mollie Finnan after Finnan became unavailable for oral argument in the proceeding (Carbon Activated Tianjin, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1298).
Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire in a Feb. 9 brief opposed plaintiff Oman Fasteners' bid for leave to fix mistakes in its recent motion to take judicial notice. Mid Continent said the trade court should refuse to give Oman Fasteners "another bite at the apple" to fix the mistakes in the brief, noting that this is the "second time in less than a month" that the exporter has asked the trade court for permission to address problems in one of its filings (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department erred when it rejected extension requests and imposed adverse facts available in its 2019-2021 antidumping duty administrative review on quartz surface products from India, three affiliated Indian producers said in a Feb. 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Antique Marbonite v. U.S., CIT # 23-00030).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case brought by Nucor Corp. should not be considered in a separate CVD case led by Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. For starters, the remand results -- which saw Commerce decide not to treat a CVD respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier -- have not been sustained, but even if they were, the trade court is not bound by judgments of other CIT judges, the government said. Also, the analysis in the Nucor case deals with particular companies and is specific to that case (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00565).