JBF Rak LLC v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 July 2014
• Docket Number: Court No. 12–00099.,Slip Op. 14–90.
• Citation: 997 F.Supp.2d 1350
• Parties: JBF RAK LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., Dupont Teijin Films and SKC, Inc., Toray Plastics (America), Inc., Defendant–Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

997 F.Supp.2d 1350

JBF RAK LLC, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant,andMitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., Dupont Teijin Films and SKC, Inc., Toray Plastics (America), Inc., Defendant–Intervenors.

Slip Op. 14–90.

Court No. 12–00099.

United States Court of

International Trade.

July 30, 2014.

Jack D. Mlawski and John J. Galvin, Galvin & Mlawski, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director; Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, (David F. D'Alessandris), Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of counsel, Justin R. Becker and Shana A. Hofstetter, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for Defendant.

Ronald I. Meltzer, Patrick J. McLain, David M. Horn, and Jeffrey I. Kessler, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Intervenors.

OPINION

BARZILAY, Senior Judge:

Before the court is Plaintiff JBF RAK LLC's (“JBF RAK”) motion for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2, challenging Defendant U.S. Department of Commerce's (“Commerce”) final results of the administrative review covering polyethylene terephthalate film (“PET Film”) from United Arab Emirates for the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 period of review. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates, 77 Fed.Reg. 20,357 (Dep't Commerce Apr. 4, 2012) (final results) (“Final Results ”); see also Issues and Decision Memorandum for Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, A–520–803 (Mar. 29, 2012), available at http:// enforcement. trade. gov/ frn/ summary/ UAE/ 2012– 8108– 1. pdf (last visited July 30, 2014). JBF RAK claims that Commerce erred by applying its zeroing methodology in the context of an administrative review. JBF RAK Br. 6. JBF RAK claims that the Federal Circuit's decision in Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed.Cir.2013) is contrary to Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2011) and JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2011). JBF RAK Br. 8. Commerce, in turn, has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under USCIT Rule 12(b)(5). Def. Br. 4. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Commerce's determinations, findings, and conclusions will be upheld unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

The Federal Circuit's decision in Union Steel has settled this issue. In Union Steel, the Federal Circuit sustained Commerce's explanation for applying its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews (and not in investigations). See Union Steel, 713 F.3d at 1107–1111. “Commerce explained that its differing applications of zeroing are due to the contextual differences between antidumping investigations and administrative reviews, as well as Commerce's discretion to take necessary and statutorily permitted measures to meet international obligations.” Tianjin Wanhua Co. v. United States, 38 CIT ––––, ––––, 961 F.Supp.2d 1335, 1336 (2014) (“ Tianjin ”) (citing Union Steel, 713 F.3d at 1108–10). Commerce, therefore, may lawfully apply its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews. Although JBF RAK attempts to characterize Union Steel as having “misapprehended” zeroing, JBF RAK Br. 4, 9–10, it is nevertheless binding authority on the issue presented here concerning Commerce's application of zeroing in the context of a review....