Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, CA v. US

Decision Date22 September 1993
Docket NumberSlip Op. No. 93-144. Court No. 88-09-00726.
Citation841 F. Supp. 1220
PartiesSURAMERICA de ALEACIONES LAMINADAS, C.A., Conductores de Aluminio del Caroni, C.A., Industria de Conductores Electricos, C.A., and Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, U.S. International Trade Commission, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendants, and Southwire Company, Defendant-Intervenor.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Arnold & Porter, Patrick F.J. Macrory, Michael Faber, Claire E. Reade, Edward Sisson, Shearman & Sterling, Thomas B. Wilner, Jeffrey M. Winton, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.

Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, M. Martha Ries, Michael S. Kane, Lyn M. Schlitt, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, James A. Toupin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Stephen A. McLaughlin, Carol McCue Verratti, Robert H. Brumley, General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC, for defendants.

Wigman, Cohen, Leitner & Myers, P.C., Victor M. Wigman, Ralph C. Patrick, Dorothy H. Patterson, McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Peter Buck Feller, Lawrence J. Bogard, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor.

Baker & McKenzie, William D. Outman, II, Arthur L. George, Washington, DC, for Gen. Elec. Co., amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MUSGRAVE, Judge.

This Court, by Slip Op. 93-35, remanded the above-captioned matter to the International Trade Commission ("ITC") for additional explanations of its affirmative finding of threat of injury by reason of imports of Venezuelan aluminum electrical conductor rod ("EC rod"). This remand was necessary, as the finding of threat was not supported by substantial evidence. This Court suggested that if the ITC could not provide the required evidence based on the record, the ITC could rescind its finding of a threat of injury. This was not an order, but merely an option which was suggested inasmuch as sufficient evidence had not been introduced. See Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 818 F.Supp. 348, and accompanying Order at 2 (March 15, 1993). The parties then had the opportunity to comment on the ITC's remand findings.

The ITC rescinded its finding of threat in its remand results dated June 2, 1993. Unfortunately, rather than providing the Court with the necessary evidence, if any, in the record to substantiate the ITC's findings, the ITC report attributed to this Court a practice of applying erroneous legal standards and of robbing the Commission of its authority and discretion. On its face, this intransigence suggests the substitution of bluster for the missing evidence.

According to the statute, the agency final determination in antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews must be sustained unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B).1 As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") recognized in its decision to deny defendant and defendant-intervenor's interlocutory appeal in this matter, this Court remanded this case to the ITC to allow further explanation of whether and how the evidence supports the ITC's factual findings and to permit consideration of additional evidence. See CAFC Order at 12 (May 26, 1993) (denying interlocutory appeal from Slip Op. 93-67 of the CIT). Moreover, the CAFC noted that as this Court phrased it, "if the ITC can find support in the record for its determination, it may make whatever determination on remand its discretion allows." CAFC Order at 3.

Rather than abrogating its statutory duty as defendant contends, the Court was compelled, in light of the absence of supporting evidence, by its statutory duty to require further explanations before sustaining the ITC's original finding — which was not otherwise based on substantial evidence. The Commission declined to even attempt to find such supporting evidence suggesting there is none to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 97-2.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 8, 1997
    ...rev'd and remanded, 966 F.2d 660 (Fed.Cir.1992), and remanded, 17 CIT 146, 818 F.Supp. 348 (1993), and opinion after remand 17 CIT 776, 841 F.Supp. 1220 (1993), and aff'd, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed.Cir.1994) to support this argument. In Suramerica, this Court ordered certain information, which the I......
  • Angell v. Fairmount Fire Prot. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • November 5, 2012
    ...had no sufficient expectation of continued employment, and lacked any property interest that might flow from that expectation. Rooker, 841 F. Supp. at 1220 (holding that plaintiff did not have due-process-protected property interest, because he failed "to sufficiently plead a rule or other ......
  • Jackson v. City Council of Augusta, Ga.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • November 30, 1993
  • Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 97-150.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • November 12, 1997
    ...966 F.2d 660 (Fed.Cir.1992), and remanded to agency, 17 CIT 146, 818 F.Supp. 348 (1993), and opinion after remand to agency 17 CIT 776, 841 F.Supp. 1220 (1993), and aff'd, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed.Cir.1994) (court considered evidence submitted to agency in rebuttal to corresponding information from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT