This morning the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Three of the nonprecedential opinions come in international trade cases, two on appeal from the Department of Commerce and one from the Court of International Trade. The other four nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. and Carbon Activated Corporation (collectively, “Carbon Activated”) are companies that export activated carbon to the United States from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Activated carbon is a solid carbon adsorbent material that is used to remove pollutants in gas and liquids. See App. 3261–76.
Carbon Activated now appeals the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) in Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (“Carbon Activated”). In that decision, the Trade Court sustained the final results of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “the agency”) in the twelfth administrative review (“AR12”) of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from China for the period April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, as modified by Commerce’s redetermination upon remand from the court. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments, and Final Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part; 2018–2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 10,539 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 22, 2021) (“Final Results”), App. 1066–69; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Nov. 17, 2022) (“Remand Determination”), App. 4796–824. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. and Carbon Activated Corporation (collectively, “Carbon Activated”) are companies that export activated carbon to the United States from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Activated carbon is a solid carbon adsorbent material that is used to remove pollutants in gas and liquids.
Carbon Activated now appeals the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) in Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (“Carbon Activated”). In that decision, the Trade Court sustained the final results of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the thirteenth administrative review (“AR13”) of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from China for the period April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2019– 2020, 86 Fed. Reg. 73,731 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 28, 2021) (“Final Results”), App. 7967–70.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Nature’s Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Nature’s Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. imported frozen fruit mixtures into the United States from Canada. The United States Customs and Border Protection classified the merchandise under subheading 0811.90.80 (“Fruit . . . frozen . . . other”) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and Nature’s Touch protested the determination. Following the denial of its protest, Nature’s Touch initiated suit in the Court of International Trade, which granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and upheld the classification. Because we agree that the common meaning of “fruit” encompasses “mixed fruit” and that “other” is properly interpreted as constituting a catch-all provision, we affirm.
Knight v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Phyllis M. Knight petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming denial of her application for disability retirement as untimely. We affirm.
Hawker v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Jeffrey Hawker filed an Individual Right of Action appeal, alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs took various personnel actions in reprisal for his protected whistleblowing activity. In the initial decision, an Administrative Judge of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed Dr. Hawker’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing. In the final order, the Board denied Dr. Hawker’s petition for review, modified part of the initial decision, and affirmed. Because the Board did not err in dismissing Dr. Hawker’s appeal, we affirm.
Casimier v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Sylvester Casimier, Jr., petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) order dismissing his appeal as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Casimier v. OPM, No. AT-0831-19-0460-I-1, 2024 WL 3069170 (M.S.P.B. June 18, 2024) (“2024 Final Order”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Defrank v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Daniel M. Defrank worked as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After VA investigated him for possible diversion of narcotics, Mr. Defrank left his employment at VA. Mr. Defrank sought relief by appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), alleging whistleblower reprisal. A Board-assigned administrative judge dismissed his appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction, Board Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) 9–14, and the full Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision, which became the final decision of the Board, S. Appx. 1–2. We now affirm.