This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The opinion reviews the Department of Commerce’s methods for determining potential patterns of discrimination in export prices. The court also issued four nonprecedential orders this morning and yesterday dismissing cases based on voluntary dismissals, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.
Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States (Precedential)
In 2015, the United States Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order covering steel nails from Taiwan. In 2019, we ordered a remand to Commerce for further explanation of one aspect of the methodology it had adopted to determine whether there was “a pattern of export prices . . . that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B)(i). Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 940 F.3d 662, 675 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (CAFC 2019 Op.). The present appeal involves Commerce’s redetermination on remand from our 2019 decision.
* * *
In 2019, we held that Commerce did not adequately explain why it was reasonable to use simple averaging. Id. at 673–75. On remand from our decision, Commerce again chose to use simple averaging for its version of a Cohen’s d denominator.
The Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upheld Commerce’s decision. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1308 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (CIT 2021 Op.). The Taiwanese producers and exporters of the steel nails at issue appeal. We conclude that the relevant statistical literature cited by Commerce uniformly uses weighted averaging in the Cohen’s d denominator calculation and that Commerce has not offered a reasonable justification for its departure from the cited literature. We therefore vacate the Trade Court’s decision and require a remand to Commerce for further consideration of its methodology for applying § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B)(i) here.
In re Expedia, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of Expedia, Inc. to voluntarily dismiss this petition,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted to the extent that the petition is withdrawn.
Clervrain v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Manetirony Clervrain and Brandako, Inc. filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims for what they say were “serious crimes” and violations of “civil rights” and unspecified constitutional rights appearing to relate to Mr. Clervrain’s deportation process.* The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants now appeal and move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
* * *
Because the complaint clearly failed to raise any claim within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we summarily affirm its dismissal of the complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Cruz v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of Walbert Cruz’s failure to file the court’s filing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 15(a)(4), the statement concerning discrimination required by Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(1), or the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a),
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This petition for review is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Interactive Games LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.