Sandvik AB v. United States
13 C.I.T. 738, 13 Ct. Int'l Trade 738, 721 F. Supp. 1322 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an antidumping investigation, a petitioner is not required to affirmatively prove that it represents a majority of the domestic industry to have standing. The International Trade Administration (ITA) may presume a petitioner has standing unless a substantial portion of the domestic industry actively opposes the petition.
Facts:
- Specialty Tubing Group, a coalition of six U.S. producers of stainless steel hollow products (SSHP), filed a petition alleging that imports of SSHP from Sweden were being sold in the United States at less than fair value.
- The United Steelworkers of America, a union representing workers in the domestic SSHP industry, later joined the petition.
- Sandvik AB, a Swedish company, and its related entities (Sandvik) produced and exported the subject SSHP to the United States.
- Sandvik Steel Company, a U.S. subsidiary wholly owned by Sandvik AB, was a domestic producer of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes.
- Sandvik Steel Company imported semi-finished products from its Swedish parent, performed further manufacturing on them in the U.S., and then sold the finished goods.
- Sandvik AB also sold SSHP destined for the U.S. market to an unrelated middleman located in a third country.
Procedural Posture:
- The Specialty Tubing Group and the United Steelworkers of America filed an antidumping petition with the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) and the International Trade Commission (ITC).
- The ITA initiated an investigation and made a preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value.
- The ITA issued a final affirmative determination that stainless steel hollow products from Sweden were being sold at less than fair value.
- The ITC issued a final affirmative determination that the U.S. industry for seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes was materially injured by reason of the dumped imports, while finding no injury for welded products.
- Sandvik AB and its related companies (plaintiffs) challenged both the ITA's and the ITC's final determinations by filing a motion for judgment upon the agency record in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
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 a petitioner in an antidumping investigation have an affirmative burden to prove it represents a majority of the domestic industry in order to have standing to file the petition?
Opinions:
Majority - Carman, Judge
No. A petitioner in an antidumping proceeding does not have an affirmative burden to prove it represents a majority of the domestic industry to have standing. Citing Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, the court affirmed the ITA's practice of assuming a petitioner has standing unless domestic industry members opposing the investigation provide a clear indication that there are grounds to doubt it. Since no domestic producers opposed the petition in this case, the ITA's determination that the petitioners had standing was lawful. The court further held that the ITA's initial standing determination is separate from and unaffected by the International Trade Commission's (ITC) subsequent 'like product' analysis for injury purposes. The court also upheld the ITC's exclusion of Sandvik's U.S. subsidiary from the domestic industry as a 'related party' and affirmed the ITA's methodologies for calculating the dumping margin, including deducting profit from the U.S. price for products further manufactured in the U.S. and using Sandvik's sale price to a third-country middleman as the U.S. purchase price.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a low threshold for domestic industries to initiate antidumping investigations, reinforcing the ITA's discretion and reliance on petitioner representations. By rejecting the requirement for petitioners to affirmatively prove majority industry support, the ruling shifts the burden to dissenters within the industry to voice opposition. This effectively streamlines the petitioning process for those seeking trade relief. The case also affirms the ITA's authority to use flexible and evolving methodologies in complex dumping margin calculations, such as the treatment of 'value added' profits and sales through intermediaries, providing the agency with significant deference in administering trade laws.
