U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States

• Decision Date: 14 August 2012
• Parties: UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, and Nucor Corporation and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Plaintiff–Intervenors v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Defendant–Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

856 F.Supp.2d 1318

34 ITRD 1920

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff,

and

Nucor Corporation and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Plaintiff–Intervenors

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant,andCompanhia Siderurgica Nacional, JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Defendant–Intervenors.

United States Court of

International Trade.

Slip Op. 12–108.

Court No. 11–00228.

Aug. 14, 2012.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, (James C. Hecht, Robert E. Lighthizer, Stephen P. Vaughn, Washington, DC, and Stephen J. Narkin, Palo Alto, CA) for Plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation.

Wiley Rein, LLP, (Tessa V. Capeloto, Alan H. Price, Timothy C. Brightbill, and Maureen E. Thorson), Washington, DC, for Plaintiff–Intervenor, Nucor Corporation.

Kelley Drye and Warren, LLP, (Kathleen W. Cannon, Paul C. Rosenthal, R. Alan Luberda, and Grace W. Kim), Washington, DC, for Plaintiff–Intervenor, ArcelorMittal USA LLC.

James M. Lyons, General Counsel; Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel; Marc A. Bernstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission; Carrie A. Dunsmore, U.S. Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, for Defendant, United States.

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, (Craig A. Lewis, Jonathan T. Stoel, and Brian S. Janovitz), Washington, DC, for Defendant–Intervenor Companhia Siderurgica Nacional.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (J. Christopher Wood, Donald Harrison, Andrea Fraser–Reid Farr, Washington, DC, Daniel J. Plaine, and DeLisa L. Lay, Washington, DC) for Defendant–Intervenors JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., Sumitomo Metal Industries.

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge:

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motions for Judgment on the Agency Record filed by United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) and ArcelorMittal USA LLC (“AMUSA”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to United States Court of International Trade Rule 56.2. Plaintiffs challenge the final determination of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) revoking antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled flat-rolled steel products from Japan and Brazil. See Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, 76 Fed.Reg. 34101 (June 10, 2011). Plaintiffs argue that the final sunset determination is not supported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accord with the law. Plaintiffs seek a remand of this matter for further proceedings before the ITC. Defendant, United States, and Defendant–Intervenors, Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd. and Sumitomo Metal Industries (collectively “Defendants”), argue that the ITC conducted a proper analysis and that its determinationwas supported by substantial evidence and in accord with the law. They oppose remand of this matter.

Based on the record and oral arguments held on August 7, 2012, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the ITC's final determination was supported by substantial evidence and in accord with the law. This matter is dismissed.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court is required to “hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion found ... to be unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accord with the law.” 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). However, the decision of the ITC is presumed to be correct and the burden of proving otherwise rests on the party challenging the decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1).

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). “Substantial evidence requires more than a mere scintilla, but is satisfied by something less than the weight of the evidence.” Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

As long as there is an “adequate basis in support of the Commission's choice of evidentiary weight, the Court of International Trade, and [the Federal Circuit], reviewing under the substantial evidence standard, must defer to the Commission.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2006). The ITC has the “discretion to make reasonable interpretations of the evidence and to determine the overall significance of any particular factor in its analysis.” Goss Graphics Sys., Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 983, 1008, 33 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1104 (1998), aff'd216 F.3d 1357 (Fed.Cir.2000). “Certain decisions, such as the weight to be assigned a particular piece of evidence, lie at the core of [the] evaluative process.” U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed.Cir.1996). “[T]he possibility of drawing two different conclusions does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). The Court may not “displace the [ITC's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Nor may the Court “reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.” Usinor v. United States, 28 CIT 1107, 1111, 342 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1272 (2004).

The ITC “must address significant arguments and evidence which seriously undermines its reasoning and conclusions.” Altx, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 1100, 1117–18, 167 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1374 (2001). However, the ITC is not “required to explicitly address every piece of evidence presented by the parties, and ... is presumed to have considered all of the evidence on the record.” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 188, 234, 318 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1247 (2004), aff'd414 F.3d 1331 (Fed.Cir.2005).

BACKGROUND

Under review are the ITC's negative determinations in the second sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel imports from Japan and Brazil. Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, 76 Fed.Reg. 34101 (June 10, 2011).

This matter arose out of the Department of Commerce's (“Commerce”) various suspension agreements, antidumping orders, and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Brazil, Japan, and Russia. Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 Fed.Reg. 34778 (June 29, 1999); Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 64 Fed.Reg. 38792 (July 19, 1999); Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 64 Fed.Reg. 38642 (July 19, 1999); Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Brazil and Russia, Inv. Nos. 731–TA–384, 731–TA–806, 808, USITC Pub. 3223 (Aug. 1999).

In 2005, the ITC completed its first five-year administrative review, sunset review, of the orders and agreements relating to imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, Japan, and Russia. The ITC issued affirmative determinations for subject imports from all three countries. Certain Hot–Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, Inv. Nos. 731–TA–384, 731–TA–806–808, USITC Pub. 3767 (Apr. 2005).

The ITC instituted its second sunset review on April 1, 2010. Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, 75 Fed.Reg. 16504 (Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Apr. 1, 2010). The ITC reached an affirmative determination regarding subject imports from Russia, but reached negative determinations with respect to subject imports from Japan and Brazil and revoked the antidumping and countervailing duty orders previously imposed on hot-rolled steel from those countries. Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, 76 Fed.Reg. 34101 (Int'l Trade Comm'n) (June 10, 2011).

In its findings, the ITC concluded that imports from Japan, Brazil, and Russia were “not likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, USITC Pub. 4237, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–384 and 731–TA–806–808 (June 2011) at 12–13 (“ Pub. Views ”). The ITC further found there to be a likely reasonable overlap of competition between all subject sources and between those imports and domestic like products. Id. at 14–15. The ITC exercised its discretion and chose not to analyze subject imports cumulatively because it deemed imports from each subject country likely to compete under different conditions in the United States market upon revocation. Id. at 18. The ITC distinguished the Brazilian industry as “significantly less export oriented” and noted that imports from Brazil “historically have had a much smaller and more stable presence in the United States market than imports from the other two subject countries.” Id. at 16–17. Japanese imports displayed different pricing patterns and a much heavier focus on the Asian market than imports from Brazil or Russia. Id. at 17–18.

With respect to Japan, the ITC determined that the revocation of the antidumping order would not result in any significant increase in the volume of its imports to the United States. Id. at 44. The ITC cited the Japanese industry's consistent and overwhelming focus on Asian markets, which are larger than the United States market and projected by the ITC to grow more quickly. Id. at 41. The ITC also...