Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHR TROY INC., MAHLE BEHR USA INC., MAHLE BEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR CHARLESTON INC., MAHLE BEHR MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., MAHLE MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs
PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC., AMPAC HOLDINGS, LLC, JEN-COAT, INC., DBA PROLAMINA, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, JW ALUMINUM COMPANY, NOVELIS CORPORATION, REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________
2020-1136 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00087-MAB, 1:18-cv-00105-MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2020
______________________
Decided: July 23, 2020 ______________________
MARK LUDWIKOWSKI, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by WILLIAM C. SJOBERG, COURTNEY GAYLE TAYLOR; ROBERT KEVIN WILLIAMS, Chicago, IL.
ANDREA C. CASSON, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also repre- sented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, BRIAN RUSSELL SOISET.
JOHN M. HERRMANN, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aluminum As- sociation Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Indi- vidual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also rep- resented by KATHLEEN CANNON, GRACE WHANG KIM, JOSHUA MOREY, PAUL C. ROSENTHAL. ______________________
Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. This case involves an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of aluminum foil. ProAmpac appeals the United States Court of International Trade’s decision affirming the United States International Trade Commis- sion’s determination that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product from other gauges of alu- minum foil. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision, we affirm. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3
I In 2017, domestic producers of aluminum foil filed an- tidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding im- ports of aluminum foil from China. Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 404 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1308–09 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). The petitions covered aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 millimeters or less, in reels ex- ceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Id. at 1309. “The petitions listed a range of uses for aluminum foil, including its use in the manufacture [of] thermal insulation for the construction industry, fin stock for air conditioners, electri- cal coils for transformers, capacitors for radios and televi- sions, and insulation for storage tanks.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). While “Commerce determines whether foreign imports into the United States are either being dumped or subsi- dized (or both),” the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) “determine[s] whether these dumped or subsidized imports are causing material injury to a domestic industry in the United States.” Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1319 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673. The Commission “identif[ies] the corresponding universe of items produced in the United States [by the affected indus- try] that are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the items in the scope of the investigation.” Changzhou Trina Solar, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 1319 (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(i), 1671(a)) (internal quo- tation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting marks omitted). Here, in the preliminary phase of its injury investiga- tions, the Commission considered the correct definition of the domestic like product, and whether there were clear di- viding lines among the domestically produced products cor- responding to the in-scope imported articles. Certain Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2020
parties argued that flat-rolled aluminum foil more than 45 microns (0.045 millimeters) thick was a separate domestic like product. Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. Others argued that ultra-thin aluminum foil less than eight microns (0.008 millimeters) thick was a separate do- mestic like product. Id. The Commission conducted its six-factor domestic like product analysis, considering: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribu- tion; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and produc- tion employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. Id. at 1312. See also, Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). “When weigh- ing those factors, the Commission disregards minor differ- ences and focuses on whether there are any clear dividing lines between the products being examined.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295. Here, the Commission found no clear di- viding lines between the varieties and gauges of aluminum foil identified by the parties, including ultra-thin alumi- num foil, and therefore preliminarily found “a single do- mestic like product consisting of all aluminum foil coextensive with the scope of the investigations.” Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309 (quoting the Commis- sion’s Preliminary Views). During the final phase of its investigation, ProAmpac disputed the Commission’s preliminary determination. ProAmpac highlighted why it believed ultra-thin alumi- num foil should be classified separately, including that few domestic aluminum foil manufacturers produce ultra-thin aluminum foil. See, e.g., J.A. 752–53. The Commission issued its final determinations in 2018, affirming its preliminary decision that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5
Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1311 (citing the Com- mission’s Final Views). ProAmpac appealed the Commission’s decision to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT sustained the Commission’s decision and entered judgment in favor of the Commission. 1 Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1313–15, 1323. 2
ProAmpac timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). II “Like the [CIT], this court reviews the Commission’s determination for substantial evidence.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1296; 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), (b)(1)(B)(i). Under the substantial evidence standard, we will affirm the Com- mission’s determination if it is supported by the record as a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commis- sion’s conclusion. Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHR TROY INC., MAHLE BEHR USA INC., MAHLE BEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR CHARLESTON INC., MAHLE BEHR MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., MAHLE MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs
PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC., AMPAC HOLDINGS, LLC, JEN-COAT, INC., DBA PROLAMINA, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, JW ALUMINUM COMPANY, NOVELIS CORPORATION, REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________
2020-1136 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00087-MAB, 1:18-cv-00105-MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2020
______________________
Decided: July 23, 2020 ______________________
MARK LUDWIKOWSKI, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by WILLIAM C. SJOBERG, COURTNEY GAYLE TAYLOR; ROBERT KEVIN WILLIAMS, Chicago, IL.
ANDREA C. CASSON, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also repre- sented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, BRIAN RUSSELL SOISET.
JOHN M. HERRMANN, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aluminum As- sociation Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Indi- vidual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also rep- resented by KATHLEEN CANNON, GRACE WHANG KIM, JOSHUA MOREY, PAUL C. ROSENTHAL. ______________________
Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. This case involves an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of aluminum foil. ProAmpac appeals the United States Court of International Trade’s decision affirming the United States International Trade Commis- sion’s determination that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product from other gauges of alu- minum foil. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision, we affirm. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3
I In 2017, domestic producers of aluminum foil filed an- tidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding im- ports of aluminum foil from China. Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 404 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1308–09 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). The petitions covered aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 millimeters or less, in reels ex- ceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Id. at 1309. “The petitions listed a range of uses for aluminum foil, including its use in the manufacture [of] thermal insulation for the construction industry, fin stock for air conditioners, electri- cal coils for transformers, capacitors for radios and televi- sions, and insulation for storage tanks.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). While “Commerce determines whether foreign imports into the United States are either being dumped or subsi- dized (or both),” the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) “determine[s] whether these dumped or subsidized imports are causing material injury to a domestic industry in the United States.” Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1319 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673. The Commission “identif[ies] the corresponding universe of items produced in the United States [by the affected indus- try] that are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the items in the scope of the investigation.” Changzhou Trina Solar, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 1319 (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(i), 1671(a)) (internal quo- tation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting marks omitted). Here, in the preliminary phase of its injury investiga- tions, the Commission considered the correct definition of the domestic like product, and whether there were clear di- viding lines among the domestically produced products cor- responding to the in-scope imported articles. Certain Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2020
parties argued that flat-rolled aluminum foil more than 45 microns (0.045 millimeters) thick was a separate domestic like product. Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. Others argued that ultra-thin aluminum foil less than eight microns (0.008 millimeters) thick was a separate do- mestic like product. Id. The Commission conducted its six-factor domestic like product analysis, considering: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribu- tion; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and produc- tion employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. Id. at 1312. See also, Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). “When weigh- ing those factors, the Commission disregards minor differ- ences and focuses on whether there are any clear dividing lines between the products being examined.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295. Here, the Commission found no clear di- viding lines between the varieties and gauges of aluminum foil identified by the parties, including ultra-thin alumi- num foil, and therefore preliminarily found “a single do- mestic like product consisting of all aluminum foil coextensive with the scope of the investigations.” Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309 (quoting the Commis- sion’s Preliminary Views). During the final phase of its investigation, ProAmpac disputed the Commission’s preliminary determination. ProAmpac highlighted why it believed ultra-thin alumi- num foil should be classified separately, including that few domestic aluminum foil manufacturers produce ultra-thin aluminum foil. See, e.g., J.A. 752–53. The Commission issued its final determinations in 2018, affirming its preliminary decision that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5
Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1311 (citing the Com- mission’s Final Views). ProAmpac appealed the Commission’s decision to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT sustained the Commission’s decision and entered judgment in favor of the Commission. 1 Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1313–15, 1323. 2
ProAmpac timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). II “Like the [CIT], this court reviews the Commission’s determination for substantial evidence.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1296; 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), (b)(1)(B)(i). Under the substantial evidence standard, we will affirm the Com- mission’s determination if it is supported by the record as a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commis- sion’s conclusion. Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562–64 (Fed. Cir. 1984). ProAmpac argues that substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s domestic like product analysis based on four of the six factors: physical characteristics and uses; interchangeability; common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and price. Appellant’s Br. 13–15. We conclude that ProAmpac’s argu- ments do not show a lack of substantial evidence.
1 Valeo North America, Inc. and MAHLE Behr Troy, Inc. also challenged the Commission’s determination re- lated to a different type of aluminum product. These par- ties have not appealed the CIT’s decision rejecting those challenges. 2 The CIT also issued a confidential opinion, which is not cited herein. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 07/23/2020
The Commission considered evidence for all six factors of the domestic like product analysis, acknowledged that ultra-thin aluminum foil differed from thicker aluminum foil in some respects, but ultimately concluded that such differences were no more than would be expected in a grouping of similar products. The Commission therefore concluded that there was no clear dividing line between ul- tra-thin aluminum foil and thicker gauge foils. ProAmpac does not dispute the veracity of any particular fact the Commission considered, nor does it identify any evidence the Commission actually failed to consider. Instead, Pro- Ampac asks this court to reweigh the evidence according to its preferred interpretation. We decline to do so. Trent Tube Div., Crucible Materials Corp. v. Avesta Sandvik Tube AB, 975 F.2d 807, 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is not for this court on appeal to reweigh the evidence or to reconsider questions of fact anew.”). III In determining that ultra-thin aluminum foil should not be defined as a separate domestic like product, the Commission weighed evidence in support of, and against, its decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commis- sion’s decision. We therefore affirm. AFFIRMED