Arcelormittal Stainless Belgium N v. v. United States
694 F.3d 82
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- This is an antidumping case over the scope of Commerce's order on certain stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC); the order covers products 4.75 mm or more in thickness.
- ASB (Belgian SSPC producer) sought a scope ruling on whether nominal thickness of 4.75 mm with actual thickness below 4.75 mm falls within the order.
- Commerce concluded the order covers nominal 4.75 mm with actual thickness under 4.75 mm, thus ASB's products are subject to the order.
- ASB appealed to CIT, which upheld Commerce; on appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding the language is unambiguous and refers to actual thickness.
- The SSPC industry measures thickness in both nominal and actual terms; Commerce previously instructed reporting in actual terms, and Carbon Steel Plate had treated 4.75 mm as an actual threshold.
- Commerce's handling on remand and its subsequent interpretation were criticized for lack of transparency and for altering scope without explicit justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether '4.75 mm in thickness' is ambiguous | ASB — plain language is actual thickness; not ambiguous | ASB — ambiguity exists; industry practice informs interpretation | Not ambiguous; refers to actual thickness |
| Role of industry practice in interpreting the scope | ASB — industry custom cannot control plain terms | Government/Allegheny — industry practice informs interpretation | Industry practice may inform interpretation, but cannot create ambiguity where none exists |
| Effect of Carbon Steel Plate precedent on ambiguity | ASB — Carbon Steel Plate supports ambiguity | Government/Allegheny — Carbon Steel Plate shows 4.75 mm is an actual threshold | Carbon Steel Plate supports interpretation that 4.75 mm is an actual measurement |
| Commerce's handling and transparency in scope changes | ASB — Commerce did not clearly state scope changes | Commerce — reasonable interpretation with industry context | Commerce cannot reinterpret scope to broaden it without explicit justification; reversal affirmed |
| Overall interpretation of the scope language | ASB — language unambiguous and excludes nominal-only products | Government/Allegheny — language ambiguous due to industry practice | Plain meaning is actual thickness; reverse CIT |
Key Cases Cited
- Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ambiguity analysis in scope rulings)
- Duferco Steel Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (limits on interpreting antidumping orders; context matters)
- Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (administrative action transparency and scope interpretation concerns)