Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellants, including GL B Energy Corporation and others, were accused of transshipping xanthan gum from China through India to evade antidumping duties imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) initiated an investigation based on allegations from CP Kelco U.S., a domestic producer, and found substantial evidence that the xanthan gum was of Chinese origin and subject to antidumping duties. Customs applied adverse inferences against the manufacturers for not cooperating with information requests, concluding that the merchandise was transshipped to evade duties.The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) reviewed the case and affirmed Customs' determinations. The CIT dismissed claims related to finally liquidated entries for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the importers failed to timely appeal the denial of their protests. The CIT also denied the remaining motions for judgment on the agency record, finding that Customs' determinations were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the CIT that Customs' evasion determinations were supported by substantial evidence and were in accordance with the law. The court also found that the CIT had jurisdiction to review the evasion determinations, even for finally liquidated entries, based on the precedent set in Royal Brush Mfg., Inc. v. United States. However, the court affirmed the CIT's decision, noting that the CIT would have denied the motions for judgment on the agency record for the same reasons stated for the other entries. The court concluded that Customs' evasion determinations were lawful and supported by substantial evidence. View "ALL ONE GOD FAITH, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Mark L. Sadler, a former employee of the United States Army, was suspended and then removed from his position for insubordination. Sadler claimed that these actions were retaliatory under the Whistleblower Protection Act and sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). He also requested sanctions against the government for the destruction of evidence. The Board denied both his motion for sanctions and his request for corrective action.The Merit Systems Protection Board initially dismissed Sadler’s first complaint, finding it did not sufficiently allege protected activity. For his second complaint, the Board acknowledged that Sadler engaged in protected whistleblower activity but concluded that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of the protected activity. The Board also denied Sadler’s motion for sanctions, finding that the destruction of evidence was part of the Army’s ordinary procedures and did not warrant sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The court agreed that Sadler’s first complaint did not allege protected activity and that the Army had provided clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. The court also upheld the Board’s decision on the sanctions issue, agreeing that the destruction of evidence was part of routine procedures and did not meet the intent standard required for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "SADLER v. ARMY " on Justia Law

Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli China), a foreign producer and exporter of certain tires, sought to establish independence from the Chinese government to obtain a separate antidumping duty rate. The United States Department of Commerce conducted an administrative review of merchandise covered by a 2015 antidumping-duty order for tires from China, covering entries between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018. Commerce applied a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within China are subject to government control, assigning a PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate unless the exporter demonstrates sufficient independence.The United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upheld Commerce’s determination that Pirelli China had not demonstrated its independence from government control. Commerce found that Pirelli China did not show autonomy from the Chinese government in selecting its management, a key criterion for obtaining a separate rate. Pirelli China’s arguments based on Italian law were rejected because the relevant provisions were not included in the record.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Trade Court’s decision. The court held that Commerce’s interpretation of the rebuttable presumption and its requirement for Pirelli China to demonstrate autonomy from government control were reasonable. The court also found that Commerce’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the indirect ownership and control by state-owned enterprises and the shared management between Pirelli entities and Chinese government-controlled entities. The court concluded that Commerce acted within its discretion in rejecting Pirelli China’s unsupported interpretations of Italian law and upheld the assignment of the PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate to Pirelli China. View "PIRELLI TYRE CO., LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

A veteran of the United States Air Force, Clinton Siples, was granted service connection for bilateral shoulder subluxation by a Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After the decision became final, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decided Burton v. Shinseki, which interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 as not limited to cases of arthritis. Mr. Siples then filed a motion alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the RO’s rating decision, arguing that the newly interpreted § 4.59 would have required the VA to assign him a higher rating for his shoulder disability, which was not based on arthritis.The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (Board) denial of Mr. Siples’s CUE motion, stating that at the time of his rating decision, § 4.59 was not undebatably understood to apply to cases other than arthritis, and thus there was no error of the type required for CUE. The Veterans Court applied the standard that CUE must be analyzed based on the law as it was understood at the time of the original decision and cannot arise from a subsequent change in the law or interpretation thereof.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that CUE must be based on the law at the time of the decision, and at the time of the RO’s decision in Mr. Siples’s case, § 4.59 was not undebatably understood as applying to cases other than arthritis. The court concluded that the regulation’s plain language did not clearly apply to non-arthritis claims, and the understanding of § 4.59 in July 2004 did not undebatably require the RO to assign a higher rating to Mr. Siples’s non-arthritic shoulder disability. View "SIPLES v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Dr. Jabeen N. Abutalib, a physician with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for alleged retaliatory personnel actions following her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. Dr. Abutalib claimed that her EEO complaint, which was settled in January 2020, led to adverse actions including a reduction in pay and reassignment. She filed a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and subsequently appealed to the MSPB.The MSPB dismissed Dr. Abutalib’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that she failed to make a nonfrivolous showing of whistleblowing or other protected activity. The administrative judge noted that as a VHA physician, Dr. Abutalib could not appeal adverse agency actions under chapter 75 of title 5. Additionally, the judge found that her claims of retaliation for filing an EEO complaint did not constitute whistleblowing under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or protected activity under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the MSPB’s decision. The court held that Dr. Abutalib did not present her argument regarding the settlement agreement as evidence of whistleblowing to the administrative judge, and thus could not raise it for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the matters addressed in the settlement agreement were not the subjects of her OSC complaint, indicating a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that Dr. Abutalib did not make a nonfrivolous showing of a qualifying whistleblowing disclosure and upheld the MSPB’s dismissal of her appeal. View "ABUTALIB v. MSPB " on Justia Law

Dr. Neena Biswas, a physician at the VA’s Dallas facility, alleged that the VA retaliated against her for whistleblowing by converting her appointment from permanent to temporary and subsequently terminating her employment. Dr. Biswas had made disclosures regarding the hiring process for the Chief of the Hospitalist Section, which she believed violated statutory requirements prioritizing U.S. citizens.The Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) found that Dr. Biswas’s disclosures were protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act and contributed to the VA’s actions. However, the Board denied her request for corrective action, concluding that the VA would have taken the same actions regardless of her disclosures. The Board determined that the VA had strong evidence supporting its personnel actions, including Dr. Biswas’s unprofessional and disruptive conduct, and that other similarly situated employees were treated similarly.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, agreeing that the VA had clear and convincing evidence to support its actions. The court noted that Dr. Biswas’s conduct, including refusing patient assignments and sending inflammatory emails, justified the VA’s actions. The court also found that the Board’s error in considering Dr. Biswas’s emails to the VA Secretary as insubordination was harmless, as the decision was supported by other substantial evidence of her misconduct. The court concluded that the VA met its burden of proving it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. View "BISWAS v. DVA " on Justia Law

Oman Fasteners, LLC, a foreign producer and exporter of steel nails, was subject to a 2015 antidumping-duty order by the U.S. Department of Commerce. During the 2020-2021 administrative review, Oman Fasteners submitted a response to Commerce's detailed questionnaire 16 minutes past the 5:00 PM deadline. Commerce rejected the late submission and applied an adverse inference, resulting in a 154.33% antidumping-duty rate for Oman Fasteners.Oman Fasteners challenged Commerce's decision in the Court of International Trade (Trade Court), seeking a preliminary injunction against the imposition of the 154.33% duty rate. The Trade Court consolidated the preliminary injunction proceeding with a trial on the merits and held that Commerce abused its discretion. The court remanded the case to Commerce for recalculation and issued an injunction limiting cash deposits to the pre-existing 1.65% rate.Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc., a domestic steel-nail producer, intervened and filed an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit concluded that Mid Continent had standing and that the appeal was not moot. The court affirmed the Trade Court's injunction, agreeing that Commerce's application of the 154.33% rate was unsupported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the slight delay in submission did not justify such a punitive rate and that the balance of hardships favored Oman Fasteners, which faced irreparable harm without the injunction. View "OMAN FASTENERS, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Thomas Rodenhizer, a U.S. Army veteran, sought an earlier effective date for his veteran benefits, which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. During the appeal, Mr. Rodenhizer passed away, and his mother, Deborah Rodenhizer, moved to be substituted in his place. The Veterans Court denied her motion, vacated the Board’s decision, and dismissed the appeal, stating that Ms. Rodenhizer had not established her right to the benefits.The Veterans Court’s decision was based on the fact that Ms. Rodenhizer had not provided evidence that she requested a determination of accrued-benefits eligibility from the VA within one year of her son’s death, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5121(c). Additionally, the VA had not made a determination about her eligibility to receive accrued benefits. The Veterans Court concluded that it could not make the factual determination of her eligibility in the first instance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Veterans Court erred in denying the motion to substitute and dismissing the appeal before a final decision was made in the parallel VA proceeding regarding Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility as an accrued-benefits claimant. The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to hold the appeal and motion to substitute in abeyance pending the outcome of the VA’s determination of Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility. The court emphasized that this approach would prevent unnecessary reworking of the same claim and save families from facing unnecessary administrative hurdles. View "RODENHIZER v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

Andrew J. Winterbottom, a veteran, was awarded a 30% disability rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was later increased to 50%. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals seeking a higher rating. During a Board hearing in June 2021, the judge questioned Winterbottom about specific violent episodes, which he later claimed demonstrated judicial bias. In May 2022, the Board denied a higher rating, concluding that his violent behavior was not unprovoked.Winterbottom appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and exhibited bias. The Veterans Court partially agreed, remanding the case because the Board did not adequately explain why it gave less weight to a private counselor's opinion. However, the court found no bias warranting reassignment, stating the judge's questions aimed to determine if the violent conduct was provoked.Winterbottom then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final orders from the Veterans Court. The court noted that exceptions to the finality requirement, as outlined in Williams v. Principi, did not apply to Winterbottom's case. The court also declined to create a new exception for judicial bias claims, suggesting that such claims should be raised through a mandamus petition or after a final judgment. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. View "WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

CKY, Inc. entered into a fixed-price construction contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 2012. CKY encountered unexpected conditions, including heavy rainfall and undisclosed culverts, which led to additional expenses. CKY sought compensation for these expenses, but the Corps denied the requests. CKY then filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking $1,146,226 for the additional costs incurred. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) ruled in favor of CKY regarding the undisclosed culverts but denied compensation for other claims.The Board awarded CKY $185,000 plus interest for the expenses related to the undisclosed culverts. CKY then applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Board granted the application, concluding that the government’s position regarding the undisclosed culverts was not substantially justified. The Board limited its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position on the specific claim where CKY prevailed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Board erred by categorically narrowing its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position and to the specific claim on which CKY prevailed. The court emphasized that the substantial-justification inquiry should consider both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position, and should treat the case as an inclusive whole rather than focusing on individual claims. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without the categorical limitations previously applied. View "In Re SECRETARY OF THE ARMY " on Justia Law