810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 86-1441, Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States

Docket Nº:Appeal No. 86-1441.
Citation:810 F.2d 1137
Party Name:CERAMICA REGIOMONTANA, S.A. and Industrias Intercontinental, S.A., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, et al., Appellees.
Case Date:February 02, 1987
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 1137

810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

CERAMICA REGIOMONTANA, S.A. and Industrias Intercontinental,

S.A., Appellants,


The UNITED STATES, et al., Appellees.

Appeal No. 86-1441.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

February 2, 1987

Page 1138

Irwin P. Altschuler, Brownstein Zeidman and Schomer, Washington, D.C., argued for appellants. With him on brief were Steven P. Kersner and David R. Amerine.

A. David Lafer, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee U.S. With him on brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director.

Kevin P. O'Rourke, Howrey and Simon, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee Tile Council of America. With him on brief were David C. Murchison, John F. Bruce and Rosemary Henry.

Before NIES, BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.


Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A., and Industrias Intercontinental, S.A., appeal the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade, 636 F.Supp. 961 (1986) (Re, C.J.), which affirmed the final results of an administrative review by the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration (ITA) of a countervailing duty order for ceramic tile from Mexico. 49 Fed.Reg. 9,919 (1984). We affirm.

Ceramica and Industrias contend that the methodology used by the ITA to calculate the countervailing duty rates was improper as a matter of law and was not supported by substantial evidence.

Appellants urge that the Mexican government figures on certain benefits paid to exporters under the Mexican government's Certificado de Devolucion de

Page 1139

Impuesto (CEDI) program were "verified," and, as a matter of law, had to be used to calculate the duty. The ITA checked the two largest exporters, namely, appellants, found that their benefits were grossly understated, and that they had received the maximum CEDI benefits (15 per cent). This led the ITA to adopt for exporters receiving any CEDI benefits a methodology based on the maximum CEDI benefits because all exporters were entitled to receive that amount. Appellants, when pressed by the court at oral argument, could point to no evidence to support their "verification" argument. Appellants submitted no evidence with respect to the monetary benefits actually received by the other Mexican exporters who took advantage of the subsidy. Under these circumstances ITA was...

To continue reading

323 practice notes
322 cases
1 books & journal articles