Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

by
In response to a 2005 petition (19 U.S.C. 1673), the Department of Commerce found that diamond sawblades from China were likely sold in the U.S. at less than fair value. For non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and assigns a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent. Commerce concluded that ATM qualified for a separate rate of 2.50%. The Trade Court remanded twice. Commerce then concluded that ATM had failed to rebut the presumption of government control, finding that a Chinese government agency controlled one of five ATM entities. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed in 2013. Commerce conducted its first administrative review before those decisions and found that ATM qualified for a separate rate of 0.15%. On remand, Commerce concluded that ATM did not qualify for a separate rate The China-wide entity rate was then 164.09%. Commerce recalculated that rate—which would apply to ATM and all other members of the China-wide entity—by averaging the previously assigned China-wide rate and the ATM rate, arriving at an entity-wide rate of 82.12%. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. Despite ATM’s cooperation with Commerce, it failed to prove independence from government control. View "Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Container Store’s top tracks and hanging standards, components of its elfa® modular storage and organization system, were imported through Houston in 2007-2008. Customs liquidated the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8302.41.60, a provision for base metal mountings and fittings suitable for buildings. Container Store filed unsuccessful protests, arguing that the merchandise should be classified under subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of furniture. Customs had previously held that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards were properly classified under subheading 8302.41.60 as mountings suitable for buildings. The Trade Court placed an appeal on its reserve calendar pending resolution of another appeal involving identical merchandise, in which Judge Ridgway ultimately granted Container Store summary judgment. The government later abandoned an appeal. Judge Barnett reached a different conclusion in the present case. The Federal Circuit reversed. The elfa® system constitutes “unit furniture” because it is designed to be hung on a wall, is “fitted with other pieces to form a larger system,” and can be “assembled together in various ways to suit the consumer’s individual needs to hold various objects or articles.” Given that the tracks and standards are designed exclusively for the elfa® unit furniture system, they are properly classified as parts of unit furniture under subheading 9403.90.80. View "The Container Store v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The U.S. Department of Commerce issued final results in the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warm water shrimp from India. Using the “average-to-transaction” methodology with zeroing, Commerce assessed one mandatory respondent with a 1.97 percent duty for entries during a period in 2012. Using a “mixed alternative” methodology, which blends both the average-to-transaction and average-to-average methodologies, Commerce assessed the second mandatory respondent with a 3.01 percent duty for the same time period. Non-mandatory respondents were assessed with a simple-averaged antidumping duty of 2.49 percent. Exporters subject to Commerce’s antidumping duties on frozen warm water shrimp from India challenged the methodology used to calculate the antidumping duties on a number of grounds related to Commerce’s decision to use the average-to-transaction methodology and zeroing. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s choices of methodologies as a reasonable exercise of its delegated authority, entitled to deference. Commerce provided rationales in support of its analysis and chose the methodology that reasonably achieves the overarching statutory aim of addressing targeted or masked dumping. View "Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The Commerce Department conducted an antidumping investigation into Turkish oil country tubular goods, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). When calculating the dumping margin, if a foreign country would normally impose an import duty on an input used to manufacture the subject merchandise, but offers a rebate or exemption from the duty if the input is exported to the U.S., Commerce increases the export price to account for the rebated or unpaid import duty (duty drawback). Çayirova produces oil country tubular goods only from J55-grade coils. Çayirova imported various grades of coils but sourced all its J55 from a domestic Turkish producer. Normally, Çayirova would pay an import duty on its imported non-J55 coils. Turkey, however, has a duty drawback regime under which “equivalent goods” may be substituted for each other. A Turkish importer may import goods into Turkey duty-free if the importer exports a sufficient volume of finished goods incorporating either the imported or equivalent goods. Turkey considers Çayirova’s imported coils to be “equivalent” to Çayirova’s domestically-acquired J55 coils. Çayirova used its exports of oil country tubular goods to the U.S. to receive duty drawbacks on its imported non-J55 coils. Commerce, the Trade Court, and the Federal Circuit agreed that Çayirova was not entitled to a duty drawback adjustment to reduce its antidumping margin because none of the goods for which duties were exempted (non-J55 coils) could be used to produce Çayirova’s oil country tubular goods. View "Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
One-E-Way filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging infringement of its patents, which disclose a wireless digital audio system designed to let people use wireless headphones privately, without interference, even when multiple people are using wireless headphones in the same space. The specification explains that previous wireless digital audio systems did not provide “private listening without interference where multiple users occupying the same space are operating wireless transmission devices.” The Commission found the claim term “virtually free from interference” indefinite and invalidated the asserted claims of One-E-Way’s patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the term “virtually free from interference,” as properly interpreted in light of the specification and prosecution history, would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. View "One-E-Way, Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law