Exporter Defends Consolidation Efforts of 3 Appeals on Sunset Review of AD Order

Exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) on Sept. 30 defended its bid to consolidate its three appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Erdemir said all three cases are "intertwined" since they are "based on the same triggering act" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

The exporter added that its consolidation request isn't moot since the court designated all three appeals as companion cases. Consolidation would establish a "level of judicial efficiency" not attainable through companion designation, the brief said, noting that a consolidated action would share "briefs, motions, oral arguments, and determinations."

Erdemir's appeals center on the fact that Colakoglu, Turkey's largest steel exporter, was excluded from the parallel countervailing duty order, though an error saw the company included in the AD order. Colakoglu sued and was dropped from the order, though the ITC concurrently began its sunset review of the AD order.

Erdemir filed three cases, the first substantively challenging the sunset review itself, while the second challenges the ITC for allegedly failing to reconsider the AD negligibility determination in the original investigation. The third suit contests the ITC's refusal to conduct a changed circumstances review. The Court of International Trade dismissed all three, though the cases weren't consolidated and were handled by two different judges (see 2406200045 and [2407220036]).

The exporter sought to merge all three suits, though the U.S. contested this action on the grounds that the suits don't relate to the same issue and also involve different ITC decisions, standards of review and evidentiary records (see 2409240040). In response, Erdemir said the three CIT decisions show that the actions were "intertwined," since the trade court acknowledged that each case concerned the "same triggering act and the relief sought" as a result of that act.

Erdemir added that the goals of consideration are met in this instance, since judicial efficiency would be greatly increased. Regarding the claim that the decisions involve different standards of review, the Federal Circuit in International Custom Products v. U.S. decided two cases concurrently that dealt with two different standards of review. The court's past proceedings show that "the alleged issues raised by the Commission are not actual issues," the brief said.