Nucor Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-1373.,No. 04-1374.,04-1373.,04-1374. |
| Parties | NUCOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States Steel Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., Weirton Steel Corporation, and Independent Steelworkers Union, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and AB Sandvik Steel (now known as AB Sandvik Materials Technology) and Sandvik Steel Company (now known as Sandvik Materials Technolgy), and Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A., Arcelor International America Inc., Arcelor Packaging International, Sidmar, N.V., Sollac Atlantique, Sollac Lorraine, and Tradearbed, Inc., and BHP Steel Americas, Ltd. (now BlueScope Steel Americas LLC), BHP Steel LLC. (now BlueScope Steel Limited), New Zealand Steel, Ltd., and Iscor (PTY.) Ltd., and Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc., and Dongbusteel Co., Ltd. and Posco, and Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., Kobe Steel Ltd., JFE Steel Corp. (formerly known as Kawasaki Steel Corp. and NKK Corporation), Thai Cold Rolled Steel Sheet Public Co., Ltd., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., and Siderurgica Del Orinoco, C.A. and Siderar S.A.I.C., and Thyssen Krupp Stahl AG and Salzgitter AG, Defendants-Appellees, and Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, Companhia Siderurgica Paulista, Usinas Siderurgica De Minas Gerias, S.A., and Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd., and Association of German Specialty Cold Rolled Steel Strip Producers, and Borcelik Celik Sanayii VE Ticaret A.S., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Charles Owen Verill, Jr., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant, Nucor Corporation. With him on the brief were Alan H. Price and Timothy C. Brightbill.
Stephen P. Vaughn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant, United States Steel Corporation. With him on the brief were Robert E. Lighthizer, John J. Mangan and James C. Hecht.
Charles A. St. Charles, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee, United States. With him on the brief were James M. Lyons, Acting General Counsel, and Rhonda M. Hughes, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Litigation. Of counsel was Marc A. Bernstein, Attorney.
Robert S. LaRussa, Shearman & Sterling LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Aceralia Corporation Siderurgica, S.A., et al. With him on the brief was Christopher M. Ryan. Of counsel were Quentin M. Baird and Julie C. Mendoza, Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, DC.
Lynn M. Fischer Fox, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, BHP Steel Americas, Ltd. (now BlueScope Steel Americas LLC), et al. With her on the brief were John D. Greenwald, Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Gary N. Horlick and Leonard M. Shambon. Of counsel was Kristin H. Mowry.
Eric C. Emerson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Corus Staal BV, et al. With him on the brief were Richard O. Cunningham and Tina Potuto Kimble.
Donald B. Cameron, Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., et al. With him on the brief were Juile C. Mendoza, R. Will Planert and Margaret S. Rudin.
Kenneth J. Pierce, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Nippon Steel Corporation, et al. With him on the brief were William H. Barringer and Robert E. DeFrancesco. Of counsel were Christopher Dunn, James P. Durling, Daniel L. Porter, Matthew R. Nicely and Carrie L. Owens.
David P. Houlihan, White & Case LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Siderurgica Del Orinoco, C.A., et al. With him on the brief were Gregory J. Spak and Richard J. Burke. Of counsel was Frank H. Morgan.
Gail T. Cumins, Sharretts Paley Carter and Blauvelt, P.C., of New York, New York, for defendants-appellees, Thyssen Krupp Stahl AG, et al.
Before RADER, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
The appellants, United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation, are domestic steel producers. Along with other domestic producers, they petitioned the International Trade Commission to investigate imports of cold-rolled steel products to determine if those imports were causing material injury to the domestic steel industry. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1). Upon completion of its investigations, the Commission issued final determinations that the domestic steel industry was not materially injured by reason of the imports. The appellants and other domestic producers filed an action in the Court of International Trade challenging the Commission's negative material injury determinations. The Court of International Trade sustained the Commission's determinations. Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F.Supp.2d 1207 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004). U.S. Steel and Nucor appeal. We affirm.
Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2251(a), authorizes the President to take appropriate action to protect domestic industries from substantial injury due to increased quantities of imports. In June 2001, the President requested that the Commission conduct a section 201 investigation of steel products imported between January 1997 and June 2001. Following its investigation, the Commission determined that cold-rolled steel products "were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry" and recommended that safeguard tariffs be imposed on steel products. Consequently, in March 2002 the President imposed safeguard tariffs on steel products, including cold-rolled steel products, of 30 percent for the first year, 24 percent for the second year, and 18 percent for the third year.
In September 2001, a number of domestic steel producers petitioned the Commission to conduct the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations that gave rise to this case. The Commission's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, which were directed to certain cold-rolled steel products, overlapped the section 201 investigation and the subsequent imposition of tariffs on cold-rolled steel products.
The Commission's responsibility in an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation is to determine if a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1). Material injury is defined as "harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant." Id. § 1677(7)(A). In order to make a material injury determination, the Commission must consider the volume of the imports, the effect on prices of domestic like products due to the imports, and the impact of the imports on the domestic industry's production. Id. § 1677(7)(B)(i). When considering the volume of the imports, the Commission must determine if the volume is significant. Id. § 1677(7)(C)(i). When determining the effect on price, the Commission must consider whether there has been significant price underselling and whether the domestic prices are depressed or suppressed because of the imports. Id. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).
The Commission issued final determinations on all of the subject investigations in September and November 2002. In those determinations, the Commission found that the "Section 201 investigation and the President's remedy fundamentally altered the U.S. market for many steel products, including cold-rolled steel." The Commission found that imports of those products declined sharply and that domestic prices increased significantly in the period after the imposition of the section 201 tariffs. The Commission further reported that, according to purchasers, the reduction in imports due to the section 201 tariffs had led to "higher prices, supply shortages, and some broken or renegotiated contracts." Based on the results of its investigation, the Commission concluded that the section 201 relief was the principal reason for the sharp decline in imports near the end of the investigation period. The Commission further found that, as of the conclusion of the antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, "the domestic cold-rolled steel products industry is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports." Because the Commission determined that the domestic industry was not suffering present material injury or a threat of material injury as a result of the subject imports, no antidumping or countervailing duties were imposed.
In the Court of International Trade, the domestic producers argued that the Commission's negative material injury determinations were flawed because, among other reasons, the Commission failed to consider the effects of imports in the early portion of the investigation period; it failed to make a determination regarding the significance of importers' underselling of domestic producers; and it erred in its determinations regarding the volume of imports and their impact on domestic prices. In a detailed opinion, the trial court sustained the Commission's determinations.
U.S. Steel and Nucor argue that the Commission erred by failing to consider the effects of products imported prior to the imposition of section 201 tariffs when it determined that the domestic industry was not suffering current material injury because of imports. In particular, they contend that the requirement in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1) and 1673d(b)(1) that the Commission determine whether the domestic industry is suffering material injury "by reason of imports" mandated that the Commission consider the effects of imports throughout the period of investigation and not confine its consideration to the effects of current imports. Because, in the appellants' view, the Commission based its material injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States
...judicial review of the Department's interpretation of the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes. See Nucor Corp. v. United States , 414 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005). First, the Court "must determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Heino v. ......
-
Nucor Corp. v. U.S.
...by the parties." Nucor Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 188, 234, 318 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1247 (2004) (citation omitted), aff'd, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed.Cir.2005). The ITC need not "make an explicit response to every argument made by a party, but [current law] instead requires that issues material to ......
-
Skf Usa v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
...not yet made at the time SKF opposed the petition, and a decision that we have held is firmly committed to the ITC's discretion. See Nucor, 414 F.3d at 1336 (noting ITC's "broad discretion" in assessing material injury). If taking an opposing view in a proceeding were tantamount to "impedin......
-
Taian Ziyang Food Co. v. United States
...detailed,” judicial review “does not demand expansive discussion or rigid adherence to [any] specific formula.” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005). “[B]usy agency staffs are not expected to dot ‘i's' and cross ‘t's.’ ” WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1156. In evaluatin......