Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Co. v. United States
649 F.3d 1371
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- SSI appeals CIT’s affirmation of Commerce’s CCR final results reinstating SSI in the antidumping order after SSI’s partial revocation; the 2001 antidumping order covered SSI’s subject merchandise from Thailand with a 3.86% dumping margin; Commerce granted partial revocation in 2006 conditioned on SSI’s Certification; Commerce later initiated a CCR in 2008 upon U.S. Steel’s petition alleging resumed dumping; Commerce reinstated SSI after finding resumed dumping in 2009; ITC injury determination remained in effect and SSI participated in Sunset Review after revocation in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1675(d) permits conditional revocation in part | SSI argues revocation in part is final and cannot be reinstated | Appellees say §1675(d) allows conditional revocation and reinstatement | Yes, §1675(d) ambiguous; deference supports conditional revocation in part |
| Whether CCR authority under §1675(b) extends to reinstating a revoked party | SSI contends CCR cannot review a revocation | Commerce has broad CCR authority for changed circumstances | Yes, CCR reviewed existing order to reinstate SSI under §1675(b)(1)(A) |
| Whether a new injury determination was required to reinstate SSI | Restarting SSI would require a new ITC injury finding | Original ITC injury finding remained valid and SSI’s merchandise was within the order | No new injury determination required; ITC injury remained intact for reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittal Canada, Inc. v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (CCR scope broad but not decisive here)
- Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (inherent authority to protect integrity of proceedings in fraud; not controlling here)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltd. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Chevron deference applied to agency statutory interpretations)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (statutory interpretation deference and policymaking within agency)
- Am. Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (administrative burden and review considerations in injury determinations)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court 2000) (Chevron framework for agency interpretations)