2020 CIT 167
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- URAA §103 delegated authority to "appropriate officers" to issue regulations "necessary to ensure" provisions of the URAA (and amendments) are implemented; the SAA approved by Congress interpreted parts of the Uruguay Round Agreements but did not expressly implement CVD expedited reviews.
- Commerce promulgated 19 C.F.R. §351.214(k) in its 1997 rules to permit countervailing-duty (CVD) expedited reviews for exporters not individually examined in an investigation.
- Commerce initiated an expedited review of the softwood lumber CVD order from Canada and, in July 2019, issued Final Results reducing or finding de minimis rates for several Canadian exporters.
- The Coalition (domestic lumber producers) challenged the Final Results, arguing Commerce exceeded statutory rulemaking authority under URAA §103(a) when it adopted §351.214(k).
- The court considered statutory text, structure, and legislative history, heard argument, and found §103(a) does not authorize regulations to implement international obligations not enacted in the URAA.
- Remedy: the court remanded the Final Results to Commerce to reconsider and identify a lawful statutory basis for §351.214(k); the court declined to vacate the regulation pending agency reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether URAA §103(a) authorized Commerce to promulgate 19 C.F.R. §351.214(k) (CVD expedited reviews) | §103(a) limits rulemaking to enacted URAA provisions; no statute authorizes CVD expedited reviews, so regulation exceeds authority | §103(a) authorizes regulations to implement the URAA and related international obligations (including SCM Article 19.3); §351.214(k) fills a recognized implementation gap | Held: §103(a) is limited to implementing enacted URAA provisions; Commerce exceeded authority in relying on §103(a) for §351.214(k) |
| Significance of the SAA and legislative history | SAA shows Congress considered Article 19.3 implementation and did not adopt procedures creating CVD expedited reviews | SAA indicates Congress expected agencies to issue implementing regulations under §103(a), supporting Commerce's rulemaking | Held: SAA/legislative history do not expand §103(a); omission of expedited-review procedures in URAA/SAA supports Coalition's view |
| Whether long administrative practice or congressional acquiescence validates Commerce's construction | No acquiescence; Congress has not clearly accepted Commerce's §103(a) construction | Commerce has long administered expedited reviews and Congress has not expressly rejected the practice | Held: No persuasive congressional acquiescence; agency practice alone cannot overcome clear statutory limits |
| Remedy: remand only or vacatur of regulation | Coalition sought relief against agency action | Government sought remand to articulate alternative lawful bases, asked court to leave regulation in effect | Held: Court remanded for agency reconsideration of statutory basis and declined to vacate §351.214(k) pending remand (to avoid disruption) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to agencies)
- La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1986) (agency may not act without congressional delegation)
- FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (agency cannot create authority from statutory silence)
- Agro Dutch Indus. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (limits on agency gap-filling reaffirmed)
- Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1804) (Charming Betsy canon on construing statutes consistent with international law)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1981) (administrative practice weighed in statutory interpretation)
- Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1933) (congressional acquiescence and administrative practice)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (remand to agency for further explanation is the usual remedy)
- Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (factors for leaving a rule in effect while remanding)