This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood (the “Coalition”) appeals the final decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirming the May 10, 2021 remand determination of the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). See Shelter Forest Int’l Acquisition, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-00212, 2021 WL 3082407, at *7 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 21, 2021) (“Shelter Forest II”). In its remand determination, Commerce found that certain hardwood plywood merchandise (“inquiry merchandise”) was commercially available prior to December 8, 2016 and therefore did not constitute later-developed merchandise that circumvented Commerce’s January 2018 antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hardwood plywood products from China (“Orders”). See id. at *3. This outcome differed from that of Commerce’s original November 2019 determination, in which it found that the inquiry merchandise was not commercially available prior to December 8, 2016 and therefore did constitute later-developed merchandise circumventing the Orders. See Shelter Forest Int’l Acquisition, Inc. v. United States, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1392 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (“Shelter Forest I”). Commerce’s change in position arose from the CIT’s decision in Shelter Forest I, which (among other things) required Commerce to consider information that it had previously declined to review. See Shelter Forest II, 2021 WL 3082407, at *2–3. Based on that information, as well as additional information solicited during the remand proceeding, Commerce reached its negative anticircumvention determination. Id. The CIT sustained this determination in Shelter Forest II, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. Id. at *3. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Automatic Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Danko Manufacturing, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Danko Manufacturing, LLC submits a “Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b),” which the court construes as a motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. No response has been filed.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.