FUJI ELEC. CO., LTD. v. US, Court No. 83-07-00965.

Decision Date07 July 1988
Docket NumberCourt No. 83-07-00965.
PartiesFUJI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., and Fuji Electric Corp. of America, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Kelley, Drye & Warren, Edward M. Lebow and David R. Busam, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Platte B. Moring, III, Office of the Chief Counsel of Intern. Trade, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Mary Patricia Michel, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

DiCARLO, Judge:

Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. and Fuji Electric Corp. of America (plaintiffs or Fuji) move for judgment on the agency record to challenge the final results of an administrative review of the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce (Commerce). Commerce found the rectifier transformer component of Fuji's direct coupled S-Formers to be outside the scope of a dumping finding on large power transformers from Japan, but found the rectifier transformer component of Fuji's close coupled S-Formers to be within the scope of the dumping finding, and thus subject to antidumping duties. Large Power Transformers From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 48 Fed.Reg. 26,498 (June 8, 1983). Fuji argues that Commerce also should have found the rectifier transformer component of Fuji's close coupled S-Formers to be outside the scope of the dumping finding.

This Court has jurisdiction under 19 U.S. C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (Supp. IV 1986) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1982). The Court finds that Commerce's addition of a "benchmark of manufactured integration" is not according to law. The Court holds that the rectifier transformer components of Fuji's close coupled S-Formers should not be subject to antidumping duties.

The Merchandise

The equipment is frequently used in the aluminum, chemical, and electro-plating industries. R. 444, 899; Plaintiff's Brief in Support of its Motion for Judgment Upon the Agencies' Record, at 14 ¶ 2. Because of the similarity of technical terms used throughout the administrative records compiled before Treasury and Commerce, and because of the importance of correctly framing the issue before the Court, several agreed definitions and undisputed facts aid the discussion.

A transformer is a device which alters incoming and outgoing voltage.

A rectifier converts alternating current to direct current.

A rectifier transformer is a particular type of transformer used with a rectifier.

A rectifier-transformer assembly is a power conversion assembly which performs both rectifier and transformer functions.

A rectiformer is another name for a rectifier-transformer assembly.

Fuji manufactures and imports two types of silicon rectifier-transformer assemblies or rectiformers, the direct coupled S-Former and the close coupled S-Former. Both are classifiable as other rectifiers and rectifying apparatus under item 682.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS).

A direct coupled S-Former is a type of rectifier-transformer assembly or rectiformer designed for capacities under 30,000 amperes. Its cooling system is enclosed in a single cubicle and uses the direct coupled configuration. R. 2614, 3973-74.

A close coupled S-Former or compact-assembled S-Former is a type of rectifier-transformer assembly or rectiformer designed for capacities over 30,000 amperes. The rectifier component and the rectifier transformer component must be separately cooled and uses a close coupled configuration. R. 2614, 3973-74.

Both types of Fuji's rectifier-transformer assemblies (the direct coupled and close coupled S-Formers) contain rectifier transformer components, which, if imported alone, would be subject to antidumping duty appraisement under T.D. 72-162.

Because of the relatively large size of the equipment, both types of S-Formers are disassembled for shipment. The rectifier transformer component arrives boxed separately from the rectifier portion, as do a number of the other major components. The S-Former components are shipped together, invoiced together, and entered together. R. 2637.

The Treasury and Commerce Decisions
a. 1972 Treasury Decision

In March of 1970, Westinghouse Electric Corp. (domestic industry) petitioned the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to investigate whether large power transformers from Japan and other countries were being sold in the United States at less than fair value. R. 1-437; Large Power Transformers From Japan: Antidumping Proceeding Notice, 35 Fed. Reg. 9934 (June 17, 1970). Early in that investigation, Fuji sought to have Treasury exclude its rectifier transformers (both the direct coupled and close coupled S-Formers) from the class or kind of merchandise being investigated, asserting that rectifier transformers do not fall within the category of large power transformers. R. 438-41; 470-80. Fuji explained that "the function of rectifier transformer is to facilitate the conversion from alternating current to direct current to be performed by rectifiers housed in a rectifier assembly unit," and that this function "is completely different from the function of power transformers which are used in transmission circuits between generators and a consumer's service circuits to step-up or step down the voltage for the purpose of transferring in bulk the electrical energy between different voltages." R. 439. Fuji maintained that rectifier transformers were always used with a rectifier transformer assembly, were "never sold alone but always in combination with rectifier assembly units," and worked only in combination with a particular rectifier unit of special design. R. 440.

Prompted by Fuji's assertions that rectifier transformers were outside the scope of the antidumping proceeding, Treasury amended the antidumping proceeding notice to specifically include rectifier transformers and power rectifier transformers as examples of large power transformers under investigation. Large Power Transformers From Japan: Antidumping Proceeding Notice, 36 Fed.Reg. 11,308 (June 11, 1971).

After this amendment was published, Fuji requested a confidential ruling from Treasury that its Silicon Power Rectifier Units be excluded from the scope of the dumping finding because they do not fall within the description of the class or kind of merchandise covered in the antidumping proceeding notice or amended antidumping proceeding notice on large power transformers from Japan. R. 538-48.

On June 14, 1972, Treasury found dumping with respect to large power transformers from Japan. T.D. 72-162; 6 Customs Bull. 301 (1972); Antidumping—Large Power Transformers From Japan, 37 Fed. Reg. 11,773 (June 14, 1972). Large power transformers subject to T.D. 72-162 are classifiable under item 682.07, TSUS.

In a letter dated June 15, 1972, Treasury identified the three major components of the rectifier-transformer assemblies as the rectifier transformer, the silicon diode rectifying elements, and the control panels. R. 576-77. In denying Fuji's request to exclude the rectifier transformer component of rectifier-transformer assemblies from the dumping finding, Treasury's letter concluded that "the rectifier transformer unit of a silicon power rectifier unit S-Former does fall within the class or kind of merchandise contemplated by the amended antidumping proceeding notice." R. 576.

b. 1978 Treasury Decision

In February of 1978, Treasury determined

that combination rectifier-transformer units, commonly known as rectiformers, are not covered by the dumping finding on large power transformers from Japan if the following conditions apply.
1. The entire assembly is imported in the same shipment and entered on the same entry.
2. The assembly has been ordered and invoiced as a unit, without a separate price for the transformer portion of the assembly.

R. 894-95, 901. Appraising officers were directed to ensure through reference to contracts, purchase orders, or other documentation that entered rectiformers have indeed been sold as a unit, rather than as separate components. R. 894. If both conditions were found to exist, then rectiformers were to be appraised without regard to the Antidumping Act. Id. Commerce refers to this ruling as the "1978 Treasury Decision" in its 1983 administrative review results. 48 Fed.Reg. at 26,499. This 1978 Treasury Decision made no distinction between close coupled S-Formers and direct coupled S-Formers.

Prior to the 1978 Treasury Decision, Fuji imported six 50,000 ampere close coupled S-Formers on March 28, 1977, and April 11, 1977. R. 3971, 4000. Apparently guided by the 1978 Treasury Decision, Customs liquidated these close coupled S-Formers without appraisement for antidumping duties. R. 3971, 4000.

c. 1983 Commerce Administrative Review Results

After the authority to administer the antidumping laws passed from Treasury to Commerce under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979, see Royal Business Machs., Inc. v. United States, 1 CIT 80, 82-83, 507 F.Supp. 1007, 1010 (1980), aff'd, 69 CCPA 61, 669 F.2d 692 (1982); 1979 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3396, 3398, Commerce reviewed large power transformers rated 10,000 KVA (kilovoltamperes) or above, by whatever name designated, used to generate, transmit, and utilize electric power. 48 Fed.Reg. at 26,498. In its final administrative review results, Commerce found that the rectifier transformer component of Fuji's close coupled S-Former is within the scope of Treasury's antidumping finding, stating that the 1978 Treasury Decision pertains only to rectiformers which satisfy a "benchmark of manufactured integration." Id. at 26,499.

Discussion

The administrative record shows Treasury included the rectifier transformer component of a rectifier-transformer assembly in the scope of the 1972 dumping finding. When Fuji attempted to have Treasury remove...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • March 21, 1989
    ...§ 1516a(b)(1)(B) (1982); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed.Cir. 1984); Fuji Elec. Co. v. United States, 12 CIT ___, 689 F.Supp. 1217, 1221 (1988). A. BEST INFORMATION OTHERWISE In reaching its determination, Commerce rejected plaintiffs' entire submission ......
  • B<abb>&#214;</abb>Hler-Uddeholm Corp. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • November 14, 1996
    ...merchandise with clear language. Alsthom Atlantique v. United States, 787 F.2d 565, 571 (Fed.Cir.1986); Fuji Elec. Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 606, 611, 689 F.Supp. 1217, 1221 (1988). Here, plaintiff contends that the original finding clearly excluded plaintiff's stainless tool steel becau......

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