The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied appellant PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a stay in a case on an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. opposed the stay, which would have stopped litigation until the resolution of Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., on the grounds that the stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" the appellant's desired outcome in Mid Continent (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear all claims brought by plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente concerning the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation after a suspension agreement was terminated, the plaintiffs argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The Commerce Department continued to rely on antidumping duty respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data. Submitting remand results on Nov. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that using Dillinger's normal books and records to value both prime and non-prime merchandise "is the only reasonable approach" since it recognizes that where Dillinger cannot make all its merchandise perfectly, the lost value of the imperfect products is actually a cost of making the perfect goods "and should be accounted for as such" (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159)
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Ruling against the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment when normal value is based on constructed value "could render the provisions Congress enacted to empower Commerce to address distortive" PMS adjustments "a dead letter in most" AD proceedings, petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief. Responding to the appellee Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s arguments for summary affirmance in the case, given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key opinion in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., Wheatland said that Commerce's PMS adjustment actually squares with Hyundai Steel (Saha Tahi Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to modify antidumping duty respondent Suzano's cost of production to exclude certain derivative expenses from the financial expense ratio in Nov. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The combination of Suzano's audited financial statements and quarterly earnings (QE) releases together show that the derivative losses are not extraordinary but instead represent financing expenses related to Suzano's normal operations and thus should not be excluded from the ratio, Commerce said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).