The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the notice of appearance for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's counsel in the company's appeal of an evasion finding to not be in compliance with the court's rules. Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, the attorney listed on Royal Brush's Entry of Appearance, had not registered for an electronic filer account with the Federal Circuit's filing system. The form must be resubmitted once Oleynik has an electronic filing account, the notice said (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The Commerce Department dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test in Dec. 15 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. If sustained, the result would cause the dumping rates for the respondents -- HiSteel Co. and Kukje Steel Co. -- to drop to 9.90% and 1.91%, respectively. The move by Commerce is one many in response to prior CIT opinions finding it illegal to make a PMS adjustment to the COP in a sales-below-cost test. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this principle in a precedential opinion (see 2112100039) (HiSteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00146).
The Court of International Trade extended on Dec. 16 a mediation period in three cases contesting the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests, until Feb. 15. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that two entries of appearance for Department of Justice attorney Robert Kiepura are not in compliance with court rules, the Federal Circuit said in two Dec. 15 notices. The entry documents were filed after the cases had been assigned to a merits panel, so in order for them to be properly added to the cases, Kiepura must first file a motion for leave to appear, the appellate court said. One case is appealing a July 2020 Court of International Trade decision that upheld the Commerce Department's termination of an old suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Confederacion de Asociaciones v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2232). The other is challenging a September 2020 decision dismissing a challenge to the final antidumping duty determination on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a splash when it said that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping review respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2112100039). This opinion surfaced in two Court of International Trade cases also contesting Commerce's PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test via a pair of supplemental authority notices (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consl. #20-03868) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).
Mediation at the Court of International Trade in six consolidated cases over Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denials failed to produce a settlement, the court said in a Dec. 14 report. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries (Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CIT Halts Liquidation of Spanish Exporter's Methionine Entries During Litigation Over Injury Finding
The Court of International Trade suspended the liquidation of Adisseo Espana's and Adisseo USA's methionine imports in a Dec. 14 statutory injunction order until litigation is completed over an injury determination on the imports. Adisseo launched its challenge in October to contest the International Trade Commission's finding that methionine imports from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry (see 2111150039). The Spanish company argued that the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence." The statutory injunction motion, though, was filed upon consent of the Justice Department, and would enjoin methionine imports brought in between March 4, 2021, and Aug. 4, 2022 (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).
CBP was well within its rights to reverse its finding that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, both the defendant-intervenors, Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co. and MSeafood Corp., and the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a pair of reply briefs. Responding to a motion for judgment from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade and Enforcement Committee, both briefs also argued that the petitioner group had no right to the business confidential information in the investigation, calling AHSTEC's arguments "borderline irresponsible" (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).