Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20476
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- Siemens Energy imported utility-scale wind towers from China and Vietnam; Commerce found dumping and countervailable subsidies and the ITC made a divided affirmative injury determination.
- ITC vote: 2 Commissioners found present material injury, 1 found threat of material injury, and 3 found no material injury or threat.
- Siemens challenged (1) counting a "threat" vote with "material injury" votes under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11), and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings of material injury and threat.
- The Court of International Trade upheld the ITC; this appeal applies the same substantial-evidence standard of review.
- The Department of Commerce limited countervailing duties prospectively under the "Special Rule" because determinations based on threat are prospective only; prior Federal Circuit precedent (Wind Tower Trade Coalition) upheld that approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vote finding "threat of material injury" can be combined with votes finding "material injury" under § 1677(11) | Siemens: A threat vote should not be aggregated with present-injury votes; four Commissioners found no present injury so vote was not evenly divided | Government/ITC: Statute treats an affirmative vote on material injury, threat, or retardation as an affirmative for tie purposes | Court: § 1677(11) is unambiguous; treating threat as an affirmative for tie purposes is lawful and the tie rule applies |
| Whether Commissioners’ findings of present material injury were supported by substantial evidence | Siemens: Findings relied on f.o.b. rather than delivered costs, overstated available domestic capacity, and ignored domestic inefficiencies and tax-related production pauses | ITC: Record shows significant import volume growth, shrinking price gap, price pressure, unused domestic capacity, declining operating income and losses | Court: Substantial evidence on the whole record supports the two Commissioners’ material-injury findings |
| Whether Commissioner Pinkert’s threat-of-injury finding was supported by substantial evidence | Siemens: Threat finding was weak, relied on alleged nonexistent downward pricing trend and out-of-POI projects | ITC: Pinkert relied on converging delivered-costs, accelerating import volume/market share, increased foreign capacity, and domestic vulnerability | Court: Substantial evidence supports the threat-of-injury finding |
| Whether the CIT misapplied substantial-evidence review by giving deference to minority affirmative votes | Siemens: CIT treated minority affirmative factual views as controlling despite majority dissent | ITC/Government: Substantial-evidence standard requires upholding reasonable agency conclusions even if record allows inconsistent inferences | Court: CIT applied the correct standard; inconsistent conclusions can both be supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (established substantial-evidence standard and review of record as a whole)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (standard that evidence must be more than a scintilla)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (inconsistent conclusions from evidence do not preclude substantial-evidence support)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (agency must consider evidence that fairly detracts)
- Fedmet Res. Corp. v. United States, 755 F.3d 912 (appellate standard of review mirrors CIT review)
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (previous Federal Circuit decision on duty effective dates and limits on retrospective duties)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (court will not reweigh facts decided by agency)
- Fleming v. Escort Inc., 774 F.3d 1371 (affirming reasonable agency determinations despite alternative inferences)