This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty investigation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States (Precedential)

Appellant appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade that affirms a final negative determination reached by the United States International Trade Commission in an antidumping duty investigation. On March 1, 2020, the Commission issued a final negative determination that the U.S. (domestic) fabricated structural steel (“FSS”) industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of sales in the United States of certain FSS imports from, among other countries, China. Appellant appealed to the Court of International Trade, raising three principal issues: (1) that the Commission erred by declining to resolve a purported ambiguity in the scope of the investigation in view of the parties’ dispute, (2) that the Commission legally erred in its determination that the captive production exception in 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1)(A)(i) did not apply in the investigation, and (3) that the Commission erred in its price effects analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). The Court of International Trade upheld the Commission’s final negative determination, and Appellant appealed to this court. We conclude that the Commission’s determination as to the issues raised on appeal is reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with the law. On that basis, we affirm the judgment of the Court of International Trade.

Apiag v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Ernesto N. Apiag appeals the decision of the Merits Systems Protection Board, finding him ineligible for deferred retirement annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Because Mr. Apiag never held a position covered under the Civil Service Retirement Act prior to his retirement, he is ineligible for a CSRS annuity. We affirm.