Oral Arguments Unnecessary in Review of AD Case on Steel Nails

The Court of International Trade should disallow a respondent in an antidumping duty case on steel nails from Taiwan to speaki at oral arguments, plaintiff Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in a March 20 opposition motion (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).

PT Enterprise's comments on the remand determination contained new arguments not previously presented to Commerce, Mid Continent said. PT argued in its remand comments that the academic literature doesn't support simple averaging, as Commerce used on remand (see 2211140064). Because PT but did not make that argument during the remand proceeding itself, it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and should be barred from that argument now, Mid Continent said.

Second, given the "limited nature" of the remand and the fully developed record, Mid Contient argued that oral arguments would be unnecessary to review the remand determination. If the Court determines to grant PT's motion and hold oral arguments, Mid Continent said that it will appear and participate fully.