Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, 072320 FEDFED, 2020-1136

Docket Nº:2020-1136
Opinion Judge:HUGHES, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Party Name:VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHRTROY INC., MAHLE BEHR USA INC., MAHLEBEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR CHARLESTON INC., MAHLE BEHR MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., MAHLE MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, JW ALUMINUM COMPANY, NOVELIS CORP...
Attorney:Mark Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by William C. Sjoberg, Courtney Gayle Taylor; Robert Kevin Williams, Chicago, IL. Andrea C. Casson, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for defend...
Judge Panel:Before O'Malley, Bryson, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 23, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHRTROY INC., MAHLE BEHR USA INC., MAHLEBEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR CHARLESTON INC., MAHLE BEHR MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., MAHLE MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs

PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC., AMPACHOLDINGS, LLC, JEN-COAT, INC., DBAPROLAMINA, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, JW ALUMINUM COMPANY, NOVELIS CORPORATION, REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendants-Appellees

No. 2020-1136

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

July 23, 2020

This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00087-MAB, 1:18-cv-00105-MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett.

Mark Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by William C. Sjoberg, Courtney Gayle Taylor; Robert Kevin Williams, Chicago, IL.

Andrea C. Casson, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Dominic L. Bianchi, Brian Russell Soiset.

John M. Herrmann, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also represented by Kathleen Cannon, Grace Whang Kim, Joshua Morey, Paul C. Rosenthal.

Before O'Malley, Bryson, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

This case involves an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of aluminum foil. ProAmpac appeals the United States Court of International Trade's decision affirming the United States International Trade Commission's determination that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product from other gauges of aluminum foil. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's decision, we affirm.

I

In 2017, domestic producers of aluminum foil filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding imports of aluminum foil from China. Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 404 F.Supp.3d 1303, 1308-09 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019). The petitions covered aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 millimeters or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Id. at 1309. "The petitions listed a range of uses for aluminum foil, including its use in the manufacture [of] thermal insulation for the construction industry, fin stock for air conditioners, electrical coils for transformers, capacitors for radios and televisions, and insulation for storage tanks." Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

While "Commerce determines whether foreign imports into the United States are either being dumped or subsidized (or both)," the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) "determine[s] whether these dumped or subsidized imports are causing material injury to a domestic industry in the United States." Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 100 F.Supp.3d 1314, 1319 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673. The Commission "identif[ies] the corresponding universe of items produced in the United States [by the affected industry] that are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the items in the scope of the investigation." Changzhou Trina Solar, 100 F.Supp.3d at 1319 (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(i), 1671(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting marks omitted).

Here, in the preliminary phase of its injury investigations, the Commission considered the correct definition of the domestic like...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP