ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United States
2017 CIT 49
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Commerce initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of cold-rolled steel from Russia; Severstal was a mandatory respondent.
- In the preliminary determination Commerce found Severstal received subsidies under Article 261 and assigned a de minimis overall subsidy rate (0.01%).
- At verification Commerce discovered previously unreported tax return deductions; Commerce applied Adverse Facts Available (AFA) and assigned an AFA rate (0.03%) and a final de minimis subsidy rate (0.62%).
- The International Trade Commission (ITC) found imports from Russia negligible and terminated the investigations; no CVD order issued.
- ArcelorMittal sued Commerce challenging the Final Determination; Severstal intervened and cross-claimed to challenge Commerce’s use of AFA in calculating Severstal’s subsidy benefit.
- The Government moved to dismiss Severstal’s cross-claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Article III standing) and for allegedly expanding the issues in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Severstal) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to bring cross-claim despite prevailing below | Severstal says it has imminent injury because remand could yield an above-de minimis rate and it would lose ability to challenge findings later | Government says Severstal prevailed (de minimis) and, with no CVD order, has no concrete or imminent injury | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: hypothetical chain of events is too speculative to constitute injury in fact |
| Whether Severstal may bring its cross-claim now or must wait for a CVD order to which it is subject | Severstal contends it must be allowed to challenge AFA application now to preserve rights | Government contends challenges should await a final order that actually injures Severstal | Court: Severstal may challenge if actually injured later; statutory avenues exist after issuance of a CVD order, so present claim is premature |
| Whether Severstal’s cross-claim impermissibly expands the issues in dispute | Severstal: cross-claim challenges same AFA determination and thus does not expand issues | Government: cross-claim raises different legal theory (AFA application vs. assigned rate) and would broaden litigation | Court: cross-claim would not expand issues, but lack of standing is dispositive; expansion argument rejected as inapposite |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Severstal seeks to preserve ability to litigate later if injured | Government did not press for prejudice | Court: dismissal without prejudice (Severstal can sue if/when concrete injury arises) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative chains of contingencies do not satisfy imminence requirement)
- Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (prevailing respondent lacks Article III standing to challenge administrative proceeding absent injury)
- Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prod. Co. v. United States, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (no jurisdiction where respondent prevailed below)
- Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 751 F. Supp. 1545 (intervenor who prevailed administratively lacks injury)
- Freeport Minerals Co. v. United States, 758 F.2d 629 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (limits on judicial review where no case or controversy)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (when court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction complaint must be dismissed)
- Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (plaintiff must show likelihood that favorable decision will redress injury)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (federal courts may not issue advisory opinions)