Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States
2013 WL 2364191
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Fedmet moved for judgment on the agency record challenging Commerce's Final Scope Ruling on magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs).
- Fedmet's Bastion bricks are MACBs described as 70–90% MgO and 3–15% carbon with 8–15% alumina.
- Commerce concluded Bastion MACBs fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
- Fedmet argues MACBs have distinct physical characteristics and ITC did not include them in its injury determination.
- The court analyzes Commerce's application of 19 C.F.R. § 351.225 and the substantial evidence standard to determine scope.
- The court ultimately denied Fedmet's motion, upholding Commerce's scope determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §351.225(k)(1) evidence supports the scope ruling. | Fedmet argues MACBs are distinct and not captured by the order. | Commerce reasoned MACBs are ambiguous under (k)(1) and proceeded to (k)(2). | Yes; Commerce reasonably treated (k)(1) evidence as ambiguous. |
| Whether §351.225(k)(2) factors support including low-alumina MACBs. | Fedmet contends MACBs are distinguishable and not interchangeable with MCBs. | Record shows low-alumina MACBs interchangeable with MCBs; Millennium study supports overlap. | Yes; Commerce's (k)(2) analysis was reasonable and supported the scope. |
| Whether ITC injury determination affects the scope of the orders regarding MACBs. | If ITC did not include MACBs, MACBs should be excluded from scope. | ITC did include MACBs in its pricing analysis; ITC injury findings do not control scope. | No; ITC inclusion/absence does not render the scope determination unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (plain-language scope controls unless ambiguous)
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (intermediate interpretive tools apply to scope rulings)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (scope rulings are highly fact-intensive and deferential to Commerce)
- ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (interpretive framework for ambiguous scope language)
- Burlington Truck Lines Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (court defers to agency expertise in complex regulatory interpretations)
- Laminated Woven Sacks Comm. v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (D. Kan. 2010) (courts do not reweigh substantial evidence on record)