General Motors Corp. v. US

• Decision Date: 12 July 1993
• Docket Number: Court No. 92-08-00537.
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, and United States International Trade Commission, Defendants, and Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, and Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

827 F. Supp. 774

17 CIT 697

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, and United States International Trade Commission, Defendants, and Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, and Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.

Court No. 92-08-00537.

United States Court of International Trade.

July 12, 1993.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, John D. Greenwald and Stavros J. Lambrinidis, for plaintiffs.

Lyn M. Schlitt, Gen. Counsel, James A. Toupin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Edwin J. Madaj, for defendants.

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Warren E. Connelly and James D. Southwick, for defendants-intervenors, Mazda Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Timothy J. Conley, Gen. Counsel, of counsel, for Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Ritchie T. Thomas, Robert H. Huey, James V. Dick and Miriam A. Bishop, for defendant-intervenors, Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., William A. Plourde, Jr. and Barbara E. Arnold, of counsel, for defendant-intervenor, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

OPINION

RESTANI, Judge:

In Minivans from Japan, USITC Pub. 2529, Inv. No. 731-TA-522 (July 1992) ("Final Det."), a majority of the commissioners of the International Trade Commission ("ITC") found that the United States minivan industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury due to less than fair value ("LTFV") sales of Japanese minivans. Plaintiffs, General Motors Corporation ("GM"), Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation, challenge the determination.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Minivans

Minivans are on-road motor vehicles with certain distinct characteristics; the primary feature distinguishing minivans from other passenger vehicles is substantial interior space. The plaintiffs, GM, Ford and Chrysler, are the only U.S. producers of minivans. Chrysler also produces minivans in Ontario, Canada; these minivans are imported into the United States. The defendant-intervenors, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor Sales, Inc. ("Toyota" and "Mazda"), accounted for most of the minivans imported from Japan during the period of investigation.²

Chrysler introduced its minivans in 1983. The first Chrysler minivans, the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager, were manufactured in Canada. In 1987, Chrysler began to offer "long wheelbase" versions of its minivans. These vehicles, called the Dodge Grand Caravan and the Plymouth Grand Voyager, were produced in the United States, and had added body length between the front and rear axles. In 1989, Chrysler introduced the Town and Country minivan, which is manufactured in the United States.³

In late 1984, GM introduced the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari. The Astro/Safari minivans were built on truck frames, and as a result were less car-like in handling than the Chrysler minivans. In 1989, GM introduced "extended" Astro/Safari minivans, which had added body length behind the rear axle. In 1989, GM produced a second minivan series, consisting of the Chevrolet Lumina APV, Pontiac Trans Sport, and Oldsmobile Silhouette ("APV triplets"). The APV triplets were intended to be more passenger oriented than the Astro/Safari vans.

Ford introduced its first minivan, the Ford Aerostar, in 1985. The Aerostar, like the GM Astro/Safari, was built on a truck frame. In 1988, Ford produced an "extended" Aerostar.

The only Japanese minivans currently produced for the U.S. market are the Mazda MPV (multi-purpose vehicle) and the Toyota Previa. Neither minivan is available in an extended or long wheelbase version. The Mazda MPV was introduced in late 1988 as a 1989 model. The Toyota Previa was introduced in February 1990, as a replacement for the first minivan that Toyota introduced into the U.S. market in 1983.

B. The Antidumping Investigation

On May 31, 1991, GM, Ford and Chrysler filed an antidumping petition, alleging that an industry in the United States was injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV sales of Japanese minivans. On July 15, 1991, ITC notified the Department of Commerce that there was a reasonable indication of material injury to the U.S. industry producing minivans. Minivans from Japan, USITC Pub. 2402, Inv. No. 731-TA-522 (July 1991) (preliminary). On January 2, 1992, the Department of Commerce issued a preliminary determination, finding that Japanese minivans were sold in the United States at LTFV. New Minivans from Japan, 57 Fed.Reg. 43 (Dep't Comm.1992) (preliminary determination of sales at LTFV). On May 26, the Department of Commerce published a final affirmative determination. New Minivans from Japan, 57 Fed.Reg. 21,937 (May 26, 1992) (final determination of sales at less than fair value).

ITC then instituted its final investigation. On June 24, 1992, ITC reached a negative determination, and on July 3, 1992, issued its opinion. The notice of final negative determination was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 1992. Minivans from Japan, 57 Fed.Reg. 31,388 (July 15, 1992).

C. The ITC Determination

The plurality defined the like product as minivans, and the domestic industry as minivan producers. Final Det., at 5, 8-12; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4), (10) (1988).⁴

It then considered the state of the domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). It rejected the plaintiffs' request to consider several factors in this assessment, including the impact of lost Canadian sales on Chrysler's U.S. production, the impact of lost minivan sales on sales of other less fuel efficient vehicles, and the impact of "brand loyalty" considerations on future lost sales of other vehicles. Final Det., at 7-10. It found that the industry was not mature, and that in a growing market a new minivan model expands market size without displacing existing sales. Id. at 17-18. It noted certain economic conditions in the domestic industry and additional factors related to product design and marketing that affected the condition of the domestic industry.⁵Id. at 18-20. Based on all these factors, ITC found adverse industry trends in the domestic industry, with mixed trends in 1989 and 1990 and declining trends in 1990 and 1991. Id. at 20-21.

The plurality then considered whether these adverse trends were caused by LTFV imports, taking into account the volume and price effect of imports and their impact on the domestic industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). In terms of volume, it found that the domestic industry accounted for the majority of shipments during the period of investigation; Canadian imports accounted for a minimum of twenty percent; and subject imports comprised less than fifteen percent of the market. Final Det., at 22. In terms of price effects, it found domestic prices were not suppressed to a significant degree by subject imports. Id. at 30. It found that due to a number of factors domestic and Japanese minivans were of limited substitutability, so price was unlikely to determine vehicle choice. Id. at 29. The plurality also found no evidence of underselling. Id. at 31. It reached this conclusion after expressing reluctance to rely on certain price data, which it viewed as flawed, and, in any event, not probative due to limited substitutability. Id. at 30-31. It refused to place great weight on the interim data for 1992. Id. at 34. In conclusion, the plurality reached a negative determination, finding volume, price effect, and impact on the domestic industry insignificant. Id. at 36.

Commissioner Rohr also reached a negative determination, but issued a separate opinion. He agreed with the plurality's findings concerning like product, the domestic industry, and industry trends. Id. at 44, 48. He found that the increased volume of subject imports had little impact on domestic sales, due to several factors: the increase was chiefly due to introduction of the Toyota Previa, which created its own demand; and only small percentages of buyers of either a domestic or imported minivan considered purchase of the other. Id. at 50. He also found no evidence of price depression or suppression due to LTFV imports, and like the plurality, discounted the 1992 data. Id. at 51, 53.

Finally, neither the plurality nor Commissioner Rohr found that the evidence indicated a threat of material injury.⁶ Id. at 37, 55-57.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

ITC's determination shall be upheld unless it is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

ITC's task is to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury by reason of imports or sales at LTFV. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1). To reach a determination, ITC considers import volume, effect on domestic prices, impact on domestic producers, and other relevant economic factors. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

B. Statutory Construction

The plaintiffs argue that ITC erred in failing to take into account the following factors: the adverse effect of lost Canadian sales on Chrysler's U.S. operations; the negative impact of lost minivan sales on U.S. producers' ability to sell less fuel efficient vehicles; and the loss of future sales of other vehicles due to brand loyalty considerations.

1. Lost Canadian Sales

The plaintiffs argue that because planning, parts production, and administrative costs are shared between U.S. and Canadian operations, lost Canadian sales lead to increased per-unit costs for vehicles manufactured in the United States. They also argue that lost Canadian sales mean more intense competition between U.S. and Canadian minivans. The plaintiffs claim that ITC should have considered these factors. The plaintiffs cite statutory provisions that give ITC discretion to...