Taiwan Semiconductor Ind v. Intl Trade Comision

• Decision Date: 21 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. 01-1060,01-1060
• Citation: 266 F.3d 1339
• Parties: (Fed. Cir. 2001) TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, GALVANTECH, INC., and INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MOTOROLA, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1339

266 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, GALVANTECH, INC., and INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MOTOROLA, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1060

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DECIDED: September 21, 2001

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Judge Donald C. Pogue

Christopher F. Corr, White & Case, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Of counsel was Lyle B. Vander Schaaf.

Michael Diehl, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel; and Marc A. Bernstein, Acting Assistant General Counsel. Of counsel was James A. Toupin, Attorney.

Gilbert B. Kaplan, Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael D. Esch, Paul W. Jameson, and Cris R. Revaz.

Before RADER, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

During its first investigation, the International Trade Commission found that Taiwanese imports of static random access memory chips (SRAMs) at less than fair value (LTFV) injured the domestic industry. Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 Fed. Reg. 8,909, 8,910 (Dep't Commerce, Feb. 23, 1998) (final determ.) (Commissioner Miller dissenting) (First Determination). On review, the United States Court of International Trade neither affirmed nor reversed. Rather, the court remanded the Commission's determination for the Commission to explain the causal nexus between LTFV Taiwanese imports and domestic price declines in light of the dominant presence of non-subject imports. Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Assoc. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999) (Taiwan I). Because the Court of International Trade did not abuse its discretion in requesting clarification from the Commission, this court affirms the Court of International Trade's initial remand.

On remand, the Commission again found that Taiwanese imports of SRAMs at LTFV injured domestic industry. Commission's Determ. on Remand (List 2, Doc. 406) (Aug. 30, 1999). The Court of International Trade again neither affirmed nor reversed. The court remanded the Commission's determination for more explanation on two issues relating to price depression and lost revenues. Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Assoc. v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000) (Taiwan II). On the second remand, the Commission determined that there was no material injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry by reason of imported Taiwanese SRAMs. Commission's Determ. on Remand (List 2, Doc. 411) (June 23, 2000) (Redetermination). The Court of International Trade affirmed the Commission's negative material injury determination. Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Assoc. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000) (Taiwan III). Because the record contains substantial evidence that factors other than LTFV Taiwanese imports caused the material injury to domestic industry, this court affirms.

I.

SRAMs are integrated circuits that allow data to be digitally stored and retrieved at high speed. SRAMs come in a variety of sizes, process technologies, access speeds, and densities. Slower speed SRAMs serve as memory in products such as cellular telephones, pagers, and modems. Higher speed SRAMs serve as intermediate, or cache, memory in various computer systems such as workstations and servers. High speed SRAMs generally sell for premium prices.

The SRAM industry is highly cyclical, with short product life cycles. Suppliers sell SRAMs with new and improved features at high margins until competitors match the features. As competitors introduce SRAMs with similar features on the market, the improved SRAM declines in price. Between the years 1994 and 1997, the number of suppliers selling SRAMs in the United States market increased. In that same timeframe, the amount of SRAM manufacturing capacity increased worldwide, particularly during 1996. Also during that same timeframe, SRAM prices on the United States market declined and the United States SRAM industry fell from profitability into steep losses. Thus, as the parties to this litigation do not dispute, the United States SRAM industry experienced material injury, particularly in 1996 and 1997.

In 1997, Micron Technology, Inc. filed an antidumping petition against imports of SRAMs from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan under section 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. 1677 (1994). The Commission examined six SRAM products in its investigation. After soliciting comments from all parties, the Commission aggregated all six products for purposes of volume analysis. The Commission's examination was, therefore, based on a single product consisting of all SRAMs.

At the time of final determination, the Commission consisted of three sitting Commissioners. One of the three Commissioners, Crawford, recused herself. The two other Commissioners, Bragg and Miller, both determined that the Korean imports did not cause material injury to the United States SRAM industry. Commissioner Miller also determined that the Taiwanese imports did not cause material injury. Commissioner Bragg, however, made an affirmative material injury determination regarding the Taiwanese imports.

Commissioner Bragg determined that the volume, in billions of bits, of Taiwanese SRAMs increased nearly threefold during the period under investigation. She thus determined that the increase in volume of Taiwanese SRAMs was significant in absolute terms. Commissioner Bragg further determined that the substantial and increasing volumes of LTFV Taiwanese imports "depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree." First Determination, at 36. Under 19 U.S.C. 1677(11), the tie vote between Commissioner Bragg and Commissioner Miller resulted in an affirmative final determination of material injury by the Commission.

On appeal, the Court of International Trade agreed with the Commission that "substantial evidence supports the conclusion that there was significant price underselling by the Taiwanese imports." Taiwan I, 59 F. Supp. 2d at 1333. The court also agreed with the Commission that the increase in absolute volume of imports from Taiwan was significant. The court, however, did not affirm the Commission's determination of material injury. Instead, the court stated that it could not adequately review the Commission's determination without further explanation as to how the Commission evaluated the significance of the Taiwanese LTFV imports in view of other price depressing effects. In the words of the trial court, "it is paramount in this regard that the Commission 'examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.'" Taiwan 1, 59 F. Supp. 2d at 1331 (quoting H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 851-52 (1994)). The court also sought an explanation from the Commission as to how the increase in volume of imports from Taiwan was significant relative to domestic consumption. The Court of International Trade therefore remanded to the Commission for such further explanations.

On remand, the Commission did not make any additional investigations into the effect of the subject imports on the United States industry. Rather, the Commission further explained its original decision based on the record. The Commission supplied explanations that the significance of the absolute volume increase in Taiwanese imports supported its material injury determination even if that volume increase might be insignificant relative to consumption. The Commission also stated the negative effect of non-subject imports on the domestic industry did not render the effects of the Taiwanese LTFV imports insignificant. On appeal, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commission's conclusion that the overall volume of subject imports was significant. Taiwan II, 93 F. Supp. 2d at 1293. The court, however, neither affirmed nor reversed the Commission's material injury determination. Rather, the Court of International Trade could not conclude that the record as a whole supports the Commission's finding that non-subject imports were not significantly competitive in the same market with domestic and Taiwanese SRAMs. The court thus remanded for more explanation of the Commission's finding that Taiwanese imports caused material injury to the domestic industry.

Three new Commissioners, Hillman, Koplan, and Okun, participated in the second remand along with Commissioners Bragg and Miller. The three new Commissioners adopted the dissenting views of Commissioner Miller from the two previous Commission determinations and added some additional views, concluding that the Taiwanese imports did not cause material injury to the domestic industry. On appeal, the Court of International Trade affirmed the Commission's negative material injury determination. Micron appeals. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(5) (1994).

II.

On substantial evidence questions, this court reviews the Court of International Trade's review of Commission decisions by stepping into the shoes of the Court of International Trade and duplicating its review under the standard in 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (1994). Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v United States, 44 F.3d 978, 982-83 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, "this court will not ignore the informed opinion of the Court of International Trade" in performing its review. Id. at 983. "That court reviewed the record in considerable detail. Its opinion deserves due respect." Id.

The...