Nucor Corp. v. United States
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13453, 27 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1321, 414 F.3d 1331 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a material injury investigation, the International Trade Commission may reasonably interpret its statutory mandate to permit it to give greater weight to the most recent data within the period of investigation, especially when an intervening event has fundamentally altered market conditions.
Facts:
- In June 2001, at the President's request, the International Trade Commission (ITC) began a Section 201 investigation into steel imports.
- In September 2001, various domestic steel producers, including Nucor Corporation and United States Steel Corporation, petitioned the ITC for separate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into cold-rolled steel imports from several countries.
- Following its Section 201 investigation, the ITC determined that steel imports were causing serious injury to the domestic industry.
- As a result of the Section 201 findings, the President imposed significant safeguard tariffs (starting at 30%) on various steel products, including cold-rolled steel, in March 2002.
- After the safeguard tariffs were imposed, the volume of imported cold-rolled steel declined sharply, and domestic prices for the product increased significantly.
- The ITC's investigation period for the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions overlapped with the period in which the Section 201 tariffs were in effect.
- Despite the price increases, some long-term contracts for domestic steel, which were negotiated at lower prices before the tariffs, remained in effect through the end of the investigation period.
Procedural Posture:
- Domestic steel producers, including Nucor Corporation and United States Steel Corporation, petitioned the International Trade Commission (ITC) to conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.
- The ITC issued final determinations finding that the domestic steel industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports.
- The domestic producers filed an action as plaintiffs in the United States Court of International Trade, a trial-level court, challenging the ITC's negative determinations.
- The Court of International Trade sustained the ITC's determinations.
- Nucor Corporation and United States Steel Corporation, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the United States (representing the ITC) as defendant-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the International Trade Commission err in its material injury determination by focusing on the most recent data within the investigation period and giving less weight to earlier data, when a significant intervening event like the imposition of safeguard tariffs has fundamentally altered market conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryson
No, the International Trade Commission does not err by focusing its material injury analysis on the most recent data within the investigation period when market conditions have fundamentally changed. The court held that the ITC's interpretation of the statutory requirement to determine if an industry 'is materially injured...by reason of imports' is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference. The statutes are silent on how the Commission should weigh data from different parts of the investigation period, granting the agency discretion. The court reasoned that since the purpose of antidumping and countervailing duties is remedial (to prevent current and future harm) rather than punitive, focusing on the most current data is a rational approach to assess the present state of the industry. In this case, the imposition of Section 201 tariffs was a 'fundamental alteration' of the market, making recent data far more probative of whether the domestic industry was presently suffering material injury from imports. The court also found that the ITC did consider the lingering effects of earlier imports, such as locked-in contract prices, but implicitly and reasonably concluded their impact was not significant in light of the sharp decline in import volumes and increase in domestic prices.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the discretionary authority of the International Trade Commission in conducting material injury investigations. It establishes that the ITC is not required to give equal weight to all data throughout the entire period of investigation and can adapt its analysis to significant, intervening market changes. This reinforces the remedial focus of U.S. trade laws, prioritizing an accurate assessment of the industry's present condition over punishing past behavior. Future litigants will face a high bar in challenging the ITC's weighing of evidence, provided the agency's reasoning, even if not perfectly explicit, can be 'reasonably discerned' from its determination.
