2012 CIT 108
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- This case challenges ITC’s negative sunset determinations on hot-rolled steel from Japan and Brazil in the second sunset review.
- ITC concluded subject imports likely would not cause injury after revocation and revoked antidumping and countervailing duties.
- Plaintiffs are U.S. Steel, Nucor, and AMUSA; defendant is United States, with several defendant-intervenors.
- ITC’s determination and supporting record were challenged under Rule 56.2 for substantial evidence and statutory compliance.
- Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); ITC’s reasoning and evidence were at issue.
- Court ultimately upheld ITC’s determination and dismissed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ITC properly exercised cumulation discretion | Nucor argues cumulation should include Japan and Brazil | ITC sufficiently distinguished countries and validly exercised discretion not to cumulate | Yes, ITC’s non-cumulation is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Likelihood of volume increase from Japan | Japan could shift exports to the U.S. upon revocation | ITC found Japan would continue focusing on Asia with limited U.S. increases | Yes, ITC supported by substantial evidence of limited U.S. volume rise. |
| Likelihood of volume increase from Brazil | Brazil would increase exports to the U.S. | Brazil home-market orientation and history show unlikely significant U.S. volume | Yes, ITC’s assessment supported by substantial evidence. |
| Likelihood of price effects | ITC undervalued potential price underselling and volume effects | ITC properly weighed price data and did not require pervasive underselling | Yes, pricing analysis supported by substantial evidence. |
| Vulnerability/impact on domestic industry | ITC relied too heavily on financial performance, ignoring other factors | ITC considered broad factors and business-cycle context; still found no vulnerability | Yes, ITC’s vulnerability and impact analyses supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla, but less than weight of evidence)
- Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (defers to agency weight given evidence under substantial-evidence review)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (agency discretion to weigh evidence and choose among conflicting views)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (limits on reassessing agency judgments on de novo review)
- Nucor Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 188 (2004) (courts defer to ITC’s cumulation decisions within broad discretion)
- Air Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 433 (1998) (ITC not required to address every piece of evidence; must provide adequate basis)
- NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard; review of ITC findings)