This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecendential order. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second comes in an international trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Veterans Legal Advocacy Group v. Collins (Precedential)
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes an award of attorney fees to a party who “prevail[s]” in a suit against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Veterans Legal Advocacy Group (VetLAG) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Veterans Court) denying its EAJA application for attorney fees. Veterans Legal Advoc. Grp. v. McDonough, No. 20-8291(E), 2024 WL 1344276 (Vet. App. Mar. 29, 2024) (Decision). Because we agree with the Veterans Court that VetLAG was not a prevailing party, we affirm.
Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. International Trade Comission (Precedential)
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce, acting under 19 U.S.C. § 1673e, issued an antidumping-duty order covering certain hot-rolled steel flat products imported from seven countries, including Turkey, for which only two mandatory respondents were investigated: Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. (Erdemir) and Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.S. and Çolakoğlu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively Çolakoğlu). One predicate for that order was a finding by Commerce that both Erdemir and Çolakoğlu had been dumping; another predicate was the determination in September 2016 by the International Trade Commission (Commission) that the dumping was causing material injury to a U.S. industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b). Erdemir did not file an action in the Court of International Trade (Trade Court or CIT) to challenge the September 2016 Commission determination. But both Erdemir and Çolakoğlu sued in the Trade Court to challenge Commerce’s dumping determination, and that case resulted, in 2020, in a finding of no dumping by Çolakoğlu and, thus, its exclusion from the antidumping-duty order.
Erdemir thereupon sought relief from the antidumping-duty order from the Commission. It requested that the Commission both reconsider its September 2016 final determination of material injury and, under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b), institute a changed-circumstances review. The Commission denied both requests. Relatedly, and concurrently, the Commission conducted its required five-year review (a “sunset review”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), and it determined in that review that the antidumping-duty order should not be revoked.
Erdemir filed three separate lawsuits in the Trade Court, challenging, respectively, the Commission’s non-revocation determination in the sunset review (the subject of appeal No. 22-2249), the Commission’s denial of the request to institute a changed-circumstances review (the subject of appeal No. 22-2242), and the Commission’s denial of reconsideration of its September 2016 determination (the subject of appeal No. 22-2243). Several United States producers of hot-rolled steel—the United States Steel Corporation, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Enterprises LLC, and Nucor Corporation (collectively, Domestic Interested Parties)—intervened in various combinations as defendants in the cases.
The Trade Court ruled against Erdemir in all three cases. It sustained the Commission’s determination in the sunset review on the merits. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Commission, 710 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT Sunset Review). It dismissed Erdemir’s complaint challenging the refusal to institute a changed-circumstances review, concluding that such a review could provide no relief not already available (and which was denied) in the sunset review. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Commission, 719 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT CCR). And it dismissed Erdemir’s complaint challenging the denial of reconsideration as outside the Trade Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Commission, 723 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT Reconsideration). Erdemir appeals from all three judgments. We affirm each judgment.