The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, for failing to file an opening brief. The company filed its suit to contest CBP's inaction on its requests to void two denied protests on Berger's Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were hit with antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. Berger claimed that the imports were not subject to the order and CBP should not have liquidated the entries since the Commerce Department had opened a scope inquiry on the imports. After the Court of International Trade tossed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit in March rejected Berger's bid for a temporary injunction, which would have required CBP to return the goods to unliquidated status or suspend the firm's protests (see 2303160023) (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
The Commerce Department has had to change its practices in countervailing duty cases when dealing with the China Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), despite the increased burden on the agency, due to a series of unfavorable court decisions, lawyers said during a panel discussion at Georgetown Law's annual International Trade Update June 13.
Should the Commerce Department's ACCESS system go down while counsel is attempting to submit documents in a proceeding with the agency, the attorney should document everything to avoid consequences for missed deadlines, said Evangeline Keenan, director of the APO/dockets unit at Commerce, during panel discussion June 14 at the Georgetown Law International Trade Update conference. Speaking on the limits of the ACCESS platform, Keenan said that the agency "will take responsibility if ACCESS is causing problems," while noting that if the issue resides with the attorney's or paralegal's own internet access, then it's their responsibility.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 15 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its finding that the Commerce Department is prohibited from using a transaction-specific margin when employing total adverse facts available, antidumping duty petitioner American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring argued in a response to a U.S. motion for reconsideration. The petitioner said reconsideration is needed since the court "decided an issue that was not presented by any party" (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).
The Commerce Department's ruling that GreenFirst Forest Products is the successor to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a changed circumstances review as part of an antidumping duty proceeding does not affect the agency's decision finding that GreenFirst is not RYAM's successor in the parallel countervailing duty proceeding, the U.S. said. Responding to GreenFirst's notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, the government said standards for initiating a CCR differ for AD and CVD cases (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The Commerce Department may still use single respondents in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, despite a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that found fault with the practice in one proceeding, a Justice Department attorney said during Georgetown Law's Annual International Trade Update conference on June 13.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty administrative review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. The review covered entries in 2020. Nucor filed the case in May and had yet to file its complaint before dismissing the action without listing a reason (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00100).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results that stuck by the agency's prior finding that importer SMA Surface's "Twilight" surface does not qualify for the crushed glass surface products exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China (see 2304120063), DOJ said in its June 12 response (SMA Surfaces v. U.S., CIT # 21-00399).