Kazakh Exporter Asks CAFC for More Words Given Differences in US, Petitioners' Briefs

Countervailing duty petitioners' opposition to exporter Tau-Ken Temri's (TKT's) bid to expand its word count for its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit falls flat, the exporter, along with the Kazakh Ministry of Trade and Integration, argued in a Nov. 6 brief to the appellate court. TKT said that it needs the extra words to respond to briefs from both the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon because, contrary to Globe's suggestion, the briefs don't make identical arguments (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

TKT filed the suit to contest the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, whereby the exporter was hit with adverse facts available for missing a filing deadline (see 2310230042). The exporter filed its opening brief, after which the U.S. and the petitioners filed suit. While both briefs are under their respective word limits, together they are over the 14,000 limit for any one brief.

The exporter said it is for this reason, among others, that additional words are needed. In addition, the two briefs from the appellees don't share citations pertaining to 43 court cases, three statutes, four regulations and "all agency decisions outside of the instant case." This "huge difference flows through their ensuing argument," the brief said.