Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. U.S.
| Citation | 865 F.2d 240 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1491,88-1491 |
| Parties | The ALGOMA STEEL CORPORATION, LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Christianson Pipe, Ltd., Ipsco, Inc. and Ipsco Steel, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES and U.S. International Trade Commission, Defendants-Appellees, Lone Star Steel Company, Maverick Tube Corporation, Sawhill Tube Division and Cyclops Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
William Silverman, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Michael P. House. Rufus E. Jarman, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, New York City, represented the plaintiffs.
George Thompson, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel and James A. Toupin, Asst. General Counsel. Michael H. Stein, Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, Washington, D.C., argued for defendants.
Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge, and MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
This is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(5) to review a decision of the United States Court of International Trade, 688 F.Supp. 639, 22 Cust.B. & Dec. 13 (1988), which affirms a determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) which holds that the sales at less than fair value (LTFV or "dumping") of certain steel products, oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Canada, injure or threaten injury to an industry in the United States. In the case of appellant Algoma Steel Corporation, a Canadian producer, the Department of Commerce had previously determined that, over a six-month period studied, such sales occurred, but it is undisputed that they were slightly under 50 percent of all United States sales Algoma made. Algoma had a printout made of the data establishing this, but the ITC refused to receive or consider it, holding that for purposes of its injury determination, sales at more than fair value (MTFV) were not to be excluded. The Court of International Trade rejected Algoma's assertion that this was legal error, as do we. That is the sole issue in the appeal, and our view of it requires that we affirm.
In the intricate administrative machinery Congress has erected over the years for dumping and countervailing duty cases, one unique feature is the allocation of responsibility to two agencies otherwise independent of one another, the Commerce Department and the ITC, the requisite injury determination for the latter, and everything else for the former. Naturally the specifics as to who does what is for dispute and discussion. Commerce, determining that sales at LTFV have occurred, normally makes no finding as to what percentage of all sales they are, but rather and in lieu thereof, states a "dumping margin" which is a weighted average adjusting appropriately for the MTFV sales. The ITC says it is not told how many or which the MTFV sales were and the raw data that was before the Commerce Department is of no use to it because its injury determination covers a different time frame. This kind of issue should be one for the agencies to resolve between themselves, and not for the courts. We think we should confine our consideration to the ultimate product: is an injury determination, not confined to the LTFV sales alone, arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to the law? We hold it is not.
As Clausewitz, the sapient Prussian general, once wrote, "the object of war is peace." Likewise, the object of sales at LTFV is other sales at MTFV. Many such sales might be the best evidence possible that the LTFV sales had served their purpose and the United States competitor was in full retreat. It is, therefore, not at all obvious that the MTFV sales are per se legally irrelevant. They might be irrelevant as a practical matter in some instances, but that would have to be shown, and no such showing has even been attempted here. The whole issue is presented as one of per se legality or illegality.
The statute seems to us to speak in plain language and to be unambiguous. Section 731, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673 says:
If--
(1) the administering authority determines that a class or kind [emphasis supplied] of foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value, and
(2) the Commission determines that--
(i) is materially injured, or
(ii) is threatened with material injury, or
by reason of imports of that merchandise, or by reason of sales (or the likelihood of sales) of that merchandise for importation,
then there shall be imposed upon such merchandise an antidumping duty, * * *.
If a "class or kind" of that merchandise is sometimes sold at LTFV, the terms of any individual sale do not matter. Here Commerce told the ITC that a class or kind of goods, namely OCTG, was being so sold. It seems quite apparent that any one sale by the foreign producer, Algoma, or any other foreign producer, is one less for the domestic industry, and to that extent whether it is over or under fair value is immaterial but, of course legal injury, unlike economic, is a concept requiring some admixture of wrong doing. Some LTFV sales must be found, but if they occurred, the ITC is not required to pursue details as to the chain of causation of every instance where the foreign supplier supplanted the domestic one.
Appellant cites some legislative history and we have considered the citations, but the instances given probably do not stem from as careful consideration as does the statutory language itself, nor is it obvious the writers adverted to, and intended to discuss, instances of sales at LTFV and MTFV by the same foreign supplier in the same period of six months. On the other hand, appellee refers to its own administrative practice, unbroken since the enactment of the present law, as consistent with its position in this case. This would require more detailed consideration if the statutory language were not so plain but, at any rate, there is nothing there to undermine our position.
We have also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Complex Mach. Works Co.
...as useful for the reasons set forth herein, but, of course, recognizes that it is not bound by such authority. Algoma Steel Corporation v. U.S., 865 F.2d 240, 243 (Fed.Cir.1989). 9. Other courts have used a "top-down" or, in some cases, a "bottom-up" method of calculation in determining civ......
-
U.S. v. Hitachi America, Ltd.
...is true that judges on the Court of International Trade are not bound by each other's decisions. Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 7 Fed. Cir. (T) 154, 156, 865 F.2d 240, 243 (1989) ("among trial courts it is unusual for one judge to be bound by the decisions of another and, if it ......
-
Makita Corp. v. U.S.
...1561, 1568 (Fed.Cir. 1996), relying on Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 518, 523, 688 F.Supp. 639, 644 (1988), aff'd, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919, 109 S.Ct. 3244, 106 L.Ed.2d 590 (1989); Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v. United States, 898 F.2d 1577, 1584 (Fed.......
-
Nmb Singapore Ltd. v. U.S.
...in the United States." Id. at 24 (citing Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 518, 520, 688 F.Supp. 639, 642 (1988), aff'd, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed.Cir.1989)); and (3) "reliance on the mere presence of subject imports to support cumulation does harm to the purpose underlying the cumulation......