US Supports Bid for More Time to File Reply Brief in Steel Branch Outlets AD Scope Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should grant a U.S. motion for more time to file its reply brief in an antidumping duty scope ruling challenge, the government argued in a Feb. 10 brief responding to arguments from appellant Sigma Corp. opposing the extension request. In its brief, Sigma said the extension bid could affect a parallel False Claims Act action at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. But even Signma concedes that the 9th Circuit is considering waiting for the Federal Circuit's decision before settling the False Claims Act matter, which indicates that the Federal Circuit should grant the extension request, the U.S. 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 appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Concurrently, Sigmia is involved in a False Claims Act proceeding at the 9th Circuit over whether Sigma imported welded outlets from China without paying antidumping duties. Sigma argued 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 9th Circuit has not stayed the FCA matter (see 2302100030).
Defending its motion for a 58-day extension, the government said that given the possibility the 9th Circuit will stay the case, "Sigma’s submission indicates a lack of prejudice if there is a likelihood that the Ninth Circuit will await this Court’s decision prior to ruling on the False Claims Act appeal." The government further said that the False Claims Act appeal is currently undergoing supplemntal briefing over jurisdictional issues unrelated to the present appeal, further undermining Sigma's prejudice claim from the extension.