Importer Opposes US Bid for More Time to File Brief in AD Scope Case
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).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The case concerns a Commerce Department ruling finding that Vandewater International's steel branch outlets are within the scope of an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. In October 2020, the Court of International Trade issued an opinion striking down a years-old scope finding that Vandewater's steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems are subject to the antidumping duties (see 2010190031).
The court found that Commerce failed to adequately explain itself, relying mostly on a previous scope ruling that doesn't fully address the issue. Upon reconsideration, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the AD order. The trade court then upheld Commerce's findings (see 2209080056), leading Sigma and Smith-Cooper International to take to the Federal Circuit.
Concurrently, Sigmia is involved in a False Claims Act proceeding at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over whether Sigma imported welded outlets from China without paying antidumping duties. Sigma now argues that the appellate court should deny the government's motion for an extension of time since the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal will affect this False Claims Act case, even though the Ninth Circuit has not stayed the FCA matter.
"An undue delay of 58 days in the briefing schedule would accordingly delay resolution -- not just of this case, but of Sigma’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit -- thereby prejudicing Sigma," the brief said. "To this end, during the discussion with counsel for Defendant-Appellee, counsel for Sigma stated that it would consent to a shorter extension of time, in particular, for 14 days. Counsel for Defendant-Appellee did not agree to that shorter extension, and consequently, Sigma opposes its motion."