Nippon Steel v. International Trade Comm.

• Decision Date: 03 October 2003
• Docket Number: No. 03-1019.,No. 03-1018.,03-1018.,03-1019.
• Citation: 345 F.3d 1379
• Parties: Nippon Steel Corporation, Nkk Corporation, Kawasaki Steel Corporation, and Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. International Trade, Commission, Defendant-Appellant, and Weirton Steel Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

345 F.3d 1379

Nippon Steel Corporation, Nkk Corporation, Kawasaki Steel Corporation, and Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. International Trade, Commission, Defendant-Appellant, and Weirton Steel Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1018.

No. 03-1019.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided October 3, 2003.

Christopher A. Dunn, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were James P. Durling, Daniel L. Porter, and Robert E. DeFrancesco, III.

James M. Lyons, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant International Trade Commission. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel; and Laurent M. deWinter, Attorney. Of counsel was Andrea C. Casson, Attorney.

Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant Weirton Steel Corporation.

John J. Mangan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, of Washington, DC for amicus curiae Bethlehem Steel Corporation, et al. Of counsel were Stephen J. Narkin, Robert E. Lighthizer; Kevin M. Dempsey and Alan W. Wolff, Dewey Ballantine, of Washington, DC.

David I. Goldman, Associate General Counsel, United Steelworkers of America, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for amicus curiae United Steelworkers of America.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL and PROST, Circuit Judges.

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

Weirton Steel Corporation and the United States International Trade Commission ("Commission") appeal from the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (1) vacating the renewed finding of material injury by the Commission following remand from the Court of International Trade and (2) directing a finding of no material injury to the domestic industry from less-than-fair-value imports by Nippon Steel Corporation and three other Japanese makers (collectively, "Nippon") of certain specialized steel products used in manufacturing tin cans for food. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 223 F.Supp.2d 1349 (2002). Appellants argue principally that the Court of International Trade exceeded its authority and engaged in credibility determinations and other fact-finding functions assigned solely to the Commission by statute.¹ They also urge that the Court of International Trade erred in holding that the Commission's determination and findings were supported by less than substantial evidence. Finally, they argue that the Court of International Trade was obligated to remand once more, to the extent it found the remand opinion of the Commission unclear, unresponsive or otherwise insufficient in light of the Court of International Trade's opinion and remand instructions.

For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the case must be remanded to the Commission for further information collection, analysis and/or explanation in response to the Court of International Trade's second opinion. Accordingly, we vacate the Court of International Trade's decision and direct that the case be remanded to the Commission for further consideration there. Because of our ground of decision, we need not and do not reach the question whether the evidence supporting the Commission's decision was or was not substantial. Nor do we reach any other issue, including whether material injury is at least threatened because of the subject imports. If and when the case reaches us again there will be time enough to do so. Thus, we imply no view on the underlying merits of material injury, vel non.

This case record already includes two long and detailed opinions by the four-person Commission majority and two exceptionally thorough and incisive opinions by the Court of International Trade.² Each opinion described and analyzed the voluminous and complex evidence in the Commission record. The Commission investigation involved dozens of transactions over a three-plus year period involving at least five major purchaser coalitions in the United States, at least five domestic steel makers who compete with the four respondent Japanese makers, and numerous makers of the same steel product in other countries that also import into the United States. In addition to voluminous records of each maker's bid prices, sale prices, domestic market shares, domestic sales, foreign penetration of the U.S. market, etc., concerning all the above corporations, the record also contains extensive hearing testimony from representatives of the major purchasers at the Commission's preliminary hearing. At this juncture, we see no need for another detailed recital of the facts and evidence.

At its essence, the disagreement between the Court of International Trade and the Commission concerns the degree to which the purchasers' testimony on the...