66 F.4th 968
Fed. Cir.2023Background
- The Department of Commerce conducted a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of certain softwood lumber from Canada, assigning company-specific rates to five investigated firms and an "all-others" rate for non‑investigated firms.
- Commerce had earlier promulgated 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(k) (now § 315.214(l)) in 1997 to implement an expedited-review procedure tied to Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement and to the URAA amendments favoring individual company rates.
- After the 2017 CVD order, numerous Canadian exporters sought expedited reviews under § 351.214(k); Commerce initiated the reviews and assigned reduced or de minimis rates to participating exporters in 2019.
- The domestic trade group COALITION challenged the expedited-review results in the Court of International Trade, arguing Commerce lacked statutory authority to promulgate § 351.214(k); the Trade Court agreed and vacated the regulation (prospectively).
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered whether the URAA (via 19 U.S.C. § 1677f‑1(e) and the URAA regulatory‑implementation grant, 19 U.S.C. § 3513(a)) authorized Commerce to adopt the expedited‑review procedure and reversed the Trade Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce had statutory authority to promulgate 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(k) | Commerce exceeded its authority; URAA § 103(a)/implementing power does not authorize the expedited‑review regulation | URAA authorized regulations to implement its amendments (including § 1677f‑1(e)); § 351.214(k) implements the statutory preference for individual rates | Reversed: Commerce had authority under URAA § 103(a)/19 U.S.C. § 3513(a) to promulgate the expedited‑review rule as implementing § 1677f‑1(e) |
| Whether the options in 19 U.S.C. § 1677f‑1(e)(2) are exclusive (precluding request‑based expedited reviews) | The statute’s enumerated options are exclusive; no authority to grant post‑order request‑based individual reviews | The statute uses permissive "may" and is not exclusive; § 1677m requires individual rates on timely request, supporting request‑based procedures | Rejected exclusivity; the court held § 1677f‑1(e) plus § 1677m support individualized, request‑driven reviews like § 351.214(k) |
Key Cases Cited
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties may be non‑self‑executing and require implementing legislation)
- Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (agency decisionmaking and administrative remand principles)
- Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (Chenery II on reviewing agency action and permissible grounds)
- MacLean‑Fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (background on CVD statute and "all‑others" rate history)
- Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 3d 1253 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (Trade Court decision vacating § 351.214(k) under URAA § 103(a))