Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 82
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the Department of Commerce's 374.15% all-others countervailing duty rate for PRC extruded aluminum.
- The court previously held the applicable regulation permissible due to statutory ambiguity but remanded the final rate for reconsideration as unreasonable.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration under Rule 59, arguing the court should address the preliminary provisional rate and that 'individually investigated' is unambiguous per the SAA.
- The preliminary provisional rate (137.65%) was superseded by the final rate (374.15%), with remand directed for reconsideration.
- The court finds review of the preliminary rate partially appropriate given its continued practical effect as a cap, and will consider that aspect on remand.
- Plaintiffs contend the SAA shows 'investigate' applies to voluntary respondents; the court rejects this scope argument as unpersuasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should review the preliminary provisional rate. | MacLean-Fogg argues review of the provisional rate is permissible. | Commerce contends review limited to final agency action. | Partially granted; preliminary review allowed on remand. |
| Whether the SAA renders 'individually investigated' unambiguous. | SAA shows 'investigate' includes voluntary respondents. | SAA language does not render term unambiguous for all respondents. | Not unambiguous; court rejects the argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Target Stores v. United States, 31 CIT 154 (2007) (rehearing standards; clarifies when rehearing is warranted)
- USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 229 (2001) (rehearing standards; cannot relitigate lost issues)