GPX International Tire Corp. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9444
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- GPX decision held that countervailing duties do not apply to NME countries under pre-2012 law.
- Congress enacted Public Law 112-99 on March 13, 2012, applying CVD law to NME countries and creating a double-counting adjustment.
- The act applies to proceedings initiated on or after November 20, 2006; it also affects related agency actions and federal-court proceedings.
- This case had been initiated in 2006 under Tariff Act subtitle A; GPX was decided in 2011, prior to enactment.
- The panel granted rehearing en banc/remanded to address constitutionality of the new statute; the mandate issued May 16, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new law retroactively applies to pending cases. | GPX overruled; new law retroactive should apply. | Congress clearly overruled GPX and retroactivity is proper in pending cases. | Yes; the statute retroactively overrules GPX and governs this ongoing case. |
| Whether the double-counting provision applies to this case. | New rule should reduce or eliminate double counting in this case. | Double-counting provision applies only to proceedings initiated after enactment; not applicable here. | Not applicable to this case; provision applies to post-enactment proceedings. |
| Whether the Constitutionality of the new statute should be decided by the Trade Court first. | Constitutionality should be addressed by reviewing court on appeal. | Trade Court should address constitutionality in the first instance. | Constitutionality of the statute to be determined by the Trade Court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (retroactivity; appellate court must apply new law to pending judgments)
- Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2004) (applies retroactivity principles to pending appeals)
- Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (statutory changes affecting pending cases permissible)
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (interpretation of statutory amendments as real changes in law)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (interpretation of amendments as intended exceptions)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (statutory amendments and impact on law)
- Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (limits on when WTO-related rulings affect U.S. agency practice)