CAFC Says US Failed to Respond to Oral Argument Notice in Case on AD Review of Italian Pasta
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave notice to the U.S. on Oct. 15 that it has failed to respond to exporter La Molisana's notice of oral argument in a case on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. Failure to file this document "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court," CAFC said in the text order (La Molisana v. United States, CIT # 23-2060).
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!
La Molisana filed its case to contest the Commerce Department's method used for reporting the protein content of pasta sold in Italy and in the U.S. The agency said pasta with a protein content over 12.5% is marked as "premium," while pasta with a protein content between 10% and 12.49% is marked as "standard." The Court of International Trade rejected the exporter's claims, sustaining the government's position that it must use the nutrition facts panel found on the pasta without adjustments for consistency and clarity (see 2309270057).
In the subsequent appeal, La Molisana claimed Commerce ignored key facts regarding differences between Italian and U.S. pasta (see 2312150039). Most recently, the exporter appealed to the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. U.S., which eliminated the Chevron deference standard, to claim that Commerce's methodology shouldn't be shown deference, given that Congress hasn't specifically delegated how to identify the foreign-like product to the agency (see 2407020024).
The court filed a notice of oral argument in September. La Molisana replied earlier this month, while the government has yet to file its reply.