This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the opinions come in international trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one grants a motion for summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition, along with links to the other orders.
China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Based on the United States Department of Commerce’s 2008 antidumping-duty order covering certain pneumatic off-the-road tires from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Commerce in November 2013 initiated an administrative review, under 19 U.S.C. § 1675, of merchandise that was subject to the 2008 order and entered the United States between September 1, 2012, and August 31, 2013 (the 2012–2013 review). Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 78 Fed. Reg. 67104 (Nov. 8, 2013). In that review, Commerce followed its now-longstanding practice of both presuming that each exporter of merchandise from the “non-market economy” of the PRC is subject to the PRC government’s control and assigning a PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate to any exporter that fails to carry the burden of persuasion to show its independence from government control sufficient to entitle the exporter to its own separate rate. Id. at 67104–105. As we recently confirmed, we have repeatedly approved that practice. Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 128 F.4th 1265, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The appeals before us are materially the same in the legal and factual issues presented. Each pertains to entries of merchandise from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) subject to an antidumping-duty order issued by the United States Department of Commerce. In each review, Commerce concluded that certain exporters from the PRC, of which the PRC indirectly owned a substantial but minority share, were not entitled to a separate antidumping-duty rate for the subject merchandise because they failed to demonstrate their independence from the PRC government’s control. Commerce thus assigned those entities the PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate, and the United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) eventually sustained Commerce’s determinations. Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (CIT 2023 OTR Decision); Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1386, 1388 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (CIT 2023 TBT Decision). The companies appeal to this court, challenging Commerce’s refusal to assign them their own separate rates. Because appellants’ assertions of legal error fail and Commerce’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
In re Conner (Nonprecedential Order)
Harry Conner petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to transfer this matter to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Conner also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.