The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 23 brief. The decision is based on an "incorrect interpretation of" the statute, and the parties never presented the issue of whether the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1677e(d), lets Commerce use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse rate, the government claimed (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 20 order dismissed a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Commerce originally tapped two mandatory respondents in the review, selecting Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals. The agency gave Datong Juqing a zero percent dumping rate while assigning Jilin Bright a $0.62 per kilogram dumping margin. The agency then assigned separate rate respondents the same $0.62/kg rate it gave to Jilin Bright (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #22-00335).
Under the Commerce Department's countervailing duty regulations, any subsidy on inputs dedicated to the downstream product must refer to subject merchandise, plaintiff Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL) argued in a Jan. 20 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said it would be "illogical" to apply the regulation to inputs mainly used to make non-subject merchandise since this interpretation "would create a broader subsidy than provided by the statute" (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellants' motion for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case. Peter Marksteiner, clerk of the court, said that while the appellants, led by Amsted Rail Company, could "self-expedite the filing of their briefs," they failed to show that an expedited briefing was necessary (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sent back the Commerce Department's rejection of NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, with Judge Claire Kelly finding Commerce didn't support its determinations that the objectors to the exclusion requests could provide "suitable substitutes" and make enough of the steel slab subject to the exclusion requests.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend eight of its rules of practice and four of its practice notes, it said in a Jan. 20 update. The court previously delayed the implementation of the amendments (see 2211170033). The amendments would alter rules 26, 30, 31, 33, 33.1, 34, 39 and 47.6, and the practice notes to rules 34, 42, 47.5 and 47.6. If adopted, the amendments would take effect March 1. Comments are due by Feb. 21.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. held oral arguments on Jan. 17 over Turkish state-owned Halkbank's claims that the U.S. judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against foreign governments and their state-owned entities. Halkbank is attempting to shirk prosecution over its efforts to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bank's arguments received a mixed reaction from the Supreme Court, with numerous justices expressing doubt over the plaintiff's claims that it is immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).
Russian exporter TMK Group on Jan. 20 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on the International Trade Commission's injury finding on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Russia that led to the imposition of a countervailing duty order on the goods. The three-count complaint challenges the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Russia with imports from Brazil, Mexico and South Korea; its analysis of South Korea's imports in the cumulation analysis; and its decision that material injury to the domestic industry was "by reason of imports" (TMK Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00346).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).