This morning the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; a precedential opinion in an international trade case; and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Bell v. United States (Precedential)

Appellants appeal a United States Court of Federal Claims order dismissing their relocation-incentive-bonus claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bell v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 378, 387 (2019). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States (Precedential)

Appellant Welspun Tubular LLC USA appeals from a decision of the Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) regarding an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea. In that review, the Department of Commerce found that a “particular market situation” (“PMS”) existed in the Korean market for welded line pipe. Based on that finding, Commerce made an upward adjustment in its calculation of the costs of production of the subject welded line pipe for the two selected respondents, Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation, which resulted in enhanced antidumping duties.

The Trade Court overturned Commerce’s determination on the ground that Commerce was not statutorily authorized to adjust the exporters’ costs of production to account for the existence of a PMS. The court also found that Commerce’s determination that a PMS existed in Korea was unsupported by substantial evidence. We agree with the Trade Court that the 2015 amendments to the antidumping statute do not authorize Commerce to use the existence of a PMS as a basis for adjusting a respondent’s costs of production to determine whether a respondent has made home market sales below cost. In light of our decision on the statutory construction issue, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether Commerce’s finding of a PMS was supported by substantial evidence.

Hibbard v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Faith M. Hibbard sought enhanced dependency and indemnity compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1311(a)(2) after the death of her husband, Ronald Hibbard, a veteran. The relevant regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied her claim, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed. Ms. Hibbard appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which affirmed the denial. Hibbard v. Wilkie, No. 20-0080, 2021 WL 96893 (Vet. App. Jan. 12, 2021); Appx. 1–5. Ms. Hibbard now appeals to us. We affirm.