Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01725/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CS Wind Tech Co., Ltd.
Not party
CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd.
Not party
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd.
Not party
Siemens Energy, Inc.
Appellant
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
Not party
United States
Appellee
Wind Tower Trade Coalition
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

TITAN WIND ENERGY (SUZHOU) CO., LTD., CS

WIND TECH CO., LTD., CS WIND VIETNAM CO.,

LTD., CHENGXI SHIPYARD CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, WIND TOWER TRADE 

COALITION,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1725

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00104-MAB, 1:13-cv-00107-MAB, 

Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

Decided: November 25, 2015

______________________ 

 MICHAEL S. SNARR, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 

by ELLIOT JAY FELDMAN, SHAWNNA YASHAR. 

 MICHAEL HALDENSTEIN, Office of the General Counsel, 

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC argued 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2015
2 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US

for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented 

by RHONDA HUGHES, DOMINIC L. BIANCHI. 

 DANIEL B. PICKARD, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC 

argued for defendant-appellee Wind Tower Trade Coalition. Also represented by DERICK HOLT, MAUREEN E.

THORSON, USHA NEELAKANTAN. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. 

Concurring in part opinion filed by Circuit Judge

WALLACH. 

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Siemens Energy, Inc., an importer of utility scale 

wind towers, appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade, which upheld the International Trade 

Commission’s (ITC or Commission) final affirmative 

injury determination in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of utility scale wind towers from 

the People’s Republic of China and in the antidumping 

duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (together, the subject merchandise).1 The judgment is affirmed.

1 See Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 992 F. 

Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (“CIT Op.”); see also

Utility Scale Wind Towers from China and Vietnam, 78 

Fed. Reg. 10,210 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Feb. 2, 2013) (“ITC 

Op.”); Utility Scale Wind Towers from China and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-486 and 731-TA-1195-1196, 

USITC Pub. 4372 (Feb. 2013) (Final) (“ITC Views”).

 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 3

DISCUSSION

The Department of Commerce determined that the 

subject merchandise was sold in the United States at less 

than fair value and that it received countervailable subsidies, and the ITC made an affirmative determination of 

material injury to the domestic industry. The determination was by divided vote of the six-member Commission; 

the issues on appeal concern the interpretation and effect 

of the divided vote. 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(11) (2012) provides that an evenly 

divided vote is deemed an affirmative determination: 

Affirmative determinations by divided Commission. . . . If the Commissioners voting on a determination by the Commission . . . are evenly 

divided as to whether the determination should be 

affirmative or negative, the Commission shall be 

deemed to have made an affirmative determination.

§ 1677(11). The issue arises because the divided vote was 

not a simple three-to-three split on the question of material injury to the domestic industry; instead, two Commissioners found present material injury and one 

Commissioner found threat of material injury, while three 

Commissioners found that there was neither material 

injury nor threat of material injury. Siemens challenges 

the protocol of including threat of injury with actual 

injury, and argues that since four Commissioners found

no present material injury, the ITC and the Court of 

International Trade erred in deeming the vote a tie. 

Siemens also argues that the findings of present material 

injury and threat of injury are incorrect. 

I

On appeal from the Court of International Trade’s review of Title 19 determinations by the ITC, this court 

applies the same standard of review as did the Court of 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/25/2015
4 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US

International Trade. Fedmet Res. Corp. v. United States, 

755 F.3d 912, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus we determine 

whether the Commission’s determination is “unsupported 

by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). 

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 

474, 477 (1951). It need not be a preponderance, but must 

be “more than a scintilla.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. 

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

Support by substantial evidence is determined on the 

entirety of the record, taking into account the evidence 

that supports and the evidence that detracts from the

agency’s conclusion. Id. at 488. In turn, when reviewing

a divided vote of the Commission, each category of inquiry

that contributes to the tie is separately determined, in 

implementation of the statute:

19 U.S.C. § 1677(11). For the purpose of applying 

this paragraph when the issue before the Commission is to determine whether there is— 

(A) material injury to an industry in the 

United States,

(B) threat of material injury to such an 

industry, or

(C) material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States, 

by reason of imports of the merchandise, an affirmative vote on any of the issues shall be treated 

as a vote that the determination should be affirmative. 

The ITC statute thus foresaw possible factual variations, 

and Congress established that a tie vote produces an 

affirmative determination of injury. 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 5

A. Finding of Material Injury

The criteria for determination of material injury are

set by statute:

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). When considering whether a 

domestic industry is materially injured by imports of 

like products, the Commission:

(i) shall consider— 

(I) the volume of imports of the subject 

merchandise,

(II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and

(III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of 

production operations within the United 

States; and

(ii) may consider such other economic factors 

as are relevant to the determination regarding 

whether there is material injury by reason of 

imports.

The period of investigation for this petition covered 2009 

through the first six months of 2012.

Two Commissioners, Chairman Williamson and 

Commissioner Aranoff, found material injury to the 

domestic industry. As to the volume of imports of subject 

merchandise, these Commissioners found “the volume of 

subject imports and the increase in volume to be significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption 

and production in the United States.” ITC Views at *15. 

These Commissioners found that the imports’ continuing 

growth in market share, accompanied by price suppression, “played a role in precluding the domestic industry 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/25/2015
6 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US

from increasing production to take advantage of the 

increase in apparent consumption.” Id. at *16. 

Turning to the price effects of the subject imports, 

these Commissioners found that although both import 

and domestic prices were rising and the imported wind 

towers had a higher total delivered cost than comparable

domestic wind towers, the price gap was shrinking and 

potential customers were using the imports to put pressure on domestic prices. They stated: 

We find that although [original equipment manufacturers] ultimately are concerned with total delivered cost, they do not agree to purchase wind 

towers from the closest available source without 

regard to f.o.b. pricing. Rather, they negotiate 

with the domestic producers regarding f.o.b. prices, the largest component of delivered cost. 

Id. at *18. 

With respect to the impact of subject imports, these 

Commissioners found that the growing volume of the 

imports suppressed domestic prices, and that the domestic industry experienced “steep declines in operating 

income” between 2009 and 2012. Id. at *21. Taken 

together, Commissioners Williamson and Aranoff determined that there was material injury to the domestic 

industry.

On appeal to the Court of International Trade, and 

now to this court, Siemens argued that these findings are 

not supported by substantial evidence. Siemens states 

that these two Commissioners incorrectly compared the 

f.o.b. prices of the imports, instead of delivered costs, and 

that they accepted the false information that domestic 

producers had the capacity to supply the domestic market, at least at certain locations in the United States. 

Siemens also states that the domestic industry was subject to operational inefficiencies, and that production 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 7

during the period of investigation was slowed by the 

expected non-renewal of the Production Tax Credit and 

other tax incentives, whereby domestic producers chose 

not to expand capacity, in view of potential reduced 

demand.

The Court of International Trade considered the arguments, and concluded that the two Commissioners’

findings of material injury are supported by substantial 

evidence on the record as a whole. The evidence of increasing import volume, price pressure and price suppression, unused domestic capacity, reduced income, and 

enlarging operating losses, supports these Commissioners’ 

finding of material injury to the domestic industry. See 

Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229.

B. Finding of Threat of Material Injury

Commissioner Pinkert found that the domestic industry was threatened with material injury, applying the 

statutory factors for determining threat of injury: 

19 U.S.C. § 2677(7)(F)(i). In determining whether 

an industry in the United States is threatened 

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales 

for importation) of the subject merchandise, the 

Commission shall consider, among other relevant

economic factors: 

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such 

information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the 

countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in 

Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and 

whether imports of the subject merchandise are 

likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or 

imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likeCase: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/25/2015
8 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US

lihood of substantially increased imports of the 

subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export 

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or 

market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially 

increased imports, 

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise 

are entering at prices that are likely to have a 

significant depressing or suppressing effect on 

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand 

for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

[...]

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on 

the existing development and production efforts of 

the domestic industry, including efforts to develop 

a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that 

indicate the probability that there is likely to be 

material injury by reason of imports (or sale for 

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether 

or not it is actually being imported at the time).

Commissioner Pinkert found that the domestic industry was in a vulnerable condition toward the end of the 

period of investigation, as the wind tower imports grew in 

volume and market share. He found that the subject 

imports were 192.8 percent higher in interim 2012 compared with interim 2011, accompanied by substantial 

increase in market share. ITC Views at *23. He deemed 

it significant that the price gap between the subject 

imports and domestic wind towers diminished substanCase: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 9

tially over the period of investigation. He found that the 

producers in China and Vietnam had increased their

capacity, and that they expected to increase their exports 

to the United States. He discussed the foreign producers’

increasing dependence on the United States market, in 

the context of only a moderate increase in United States 

demand in the near future. He observed that several 

domestic producers had ceased production or closed 

plants. 

Commissioner Pinkert found threat of “significant loss 

of revenues” and “declining employment, output, and 

productivity” in the imminent future, id. at *25, and 

concluded that the intensifying level of competition from 

the subject imports would be likely to threaten material 

injury to the domestic industry, which was already in a 

loss position. Id.

Siemens states that Commissioner Pinkert’s finding 

of threat of material injury was weak and poorly supported, and should not receive equal weight with the findings 

of no injury. Siemens states that the finding of threat of 

injury was based on a perceived downward pricing trend 

that did not exist. The government characterizes this 

argument as a misstatement, because Commissioner 

Pinkert cited the increasing price trend and the shrinking 

price gap between the imports and the domestic product, 

and recognized that the domestic industry was under 

price pressure from the imports and was operating at a 

loss that was increasing.

Review of the record and argument shows that there 

was substantial evidence in support of Commissioner 

Pinkert’s conclusion of threat of material injury. The 

Court of International Trade correctly sustained this 

finding.

C. Finding of No Material Injury

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/25/2015
10 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US

Commissioners Pearson, Johanson, and Broadbent 

found neither material injury nor threat of material 

injury. These Commissioners found that the investigation 

data did not establish price underselling, price depression, or price suppression. They recognized the erosion of 

domestic producers’ market share and profitability, but 

found that it was not shown that this situation would 

continue into the future, explaining that the unused 

production capacity in China had not yet been qualified to 

meet United States standards and is inconveniently 

located for shipment to the United States. Siemens 

argues that the Commission and the Court of International Trade were incorrect in counting Commissioner 

Pinkert’s vote of threatened injury on the side of material

injury. Siemens stresses that four of the six Commissioners found no actual material injury, and argues that the 

vote was not evenly divided. Siemens also argues that the 

three Commissioners who found injury or threat of injury 

failed to consider evidence that “fairly detracts from its 

weight,” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 

1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, review of the 

Commission determinations does not support this criticism.

The record shows investigation of and inquiry into the 

statutory factors, including the competitive characteristics of the imported and domestic wind towers, the nature 

of the market, the price characteristics of the industry, 

and the impact of the subject imports on the domestic 

industry. There was discussion of f.o.b. and delivered 

costs, the price patterns, and other issues including the 

allegations of domestic operational inefficiencies. 

Although individual Commissioners reached divergent conclusions, “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an 

administrative agency’s finding from being supported by 

substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 11

U.S. 607, 620 (1966). The Court of International Trade 

explained its affirmance of the Commission’s conclusion: 

While the court must consider the record as a 

whole, when the Commission has based its determination on substantial evidence and considered 

the evidence that fairly detracts from its conclusion, the court may not displace the agency’s 

choice.

CIT Op. at 1331. We agree that the evidence was such 

that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support the conclusion.” Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 

477. We conclude that the Court of International Trade

correctly upheld the Commission’s affirmative injury 

determination. 

II

The Department of Commerce levied countervailing 

duties, but limited the duties to imports after the decision 

date of February 15, 2013, in accordance with the “Special 

Rule” of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(b) and 1673e(b), whereby 

determinations based on threat of injury are prospective 

only. This aspect was previously sustained by the Court 

of International Trade, reported at Wind Tower Trade 

Coal. v. United States, 904 F. Supp.2d 1349 (Ct. Int’l Tr. 

2013), and affirmed by the Federal Circuit at Wind Tower 

Trade Coal. v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

(denying injunction in view of the “fragmented voting 

pattern” where four of the six Commissioners did not find 

present material injury). Although the Coalition again 

questions this result, that ruling is the law of this case. 

We discern no basis for reconsideration.

The decision of the Court of International Trade is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/25/2015
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

TITAN WIND ENERGY (SUZHOU) CO., LTD., CS

WIND TECH CO., LTD., CS WIND VIETNAM CO.,

LTD., CHENGXI SHIPYARD CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, WIND TOWER TRADE 

COALITION,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1725

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:13-cv-00104-MAB, 1:13-cv-00107-MAB, 

Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part.

 I concur in the result that the majority reaches, but 

write separately to ensure that what we say (or do not 

say) today is not misconstrued.

It is important to highlight certain relevant facts. On 

January 24, 2012, following petitions filed by the Wind 

Tower Trade Coalition (“Coalition”), the United States 

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) initiated the 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/25/2015
2 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES

subject investigations. In February 2012, the United 

States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued a unanimous affirmative preliminary 

injury determination, finding that “there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of” the subject imports. Utility Scale Wind Towers from China and 

Vietnam, 77 Fed. Reg. 9700, 9700 (ITC Feb. 17, 2012) 

(preliminary determination). 

With Commerce having issued a final determination 

that the subject merchandise was sold in the United 

States at less than fair value and that such merchandise 

also benefitted from countervailable subsidies, the ITC 

made an affirmative final injury determination. Two 

Commissioners found material injury; four did not; one 

found threat of material injury;1 and three found that 

there was no threat of such injury.

The majority’s conclusion implicitly rejects, without 

discussion, several arguments that Appellant Siemens 

Energy, Inc. (“Siemens”) unsuccessfully raised before the 

United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and 

that it again raises on appeal. They are addressed below. 

Moreover, the majority concludes its opinion with a brief 

discussion of our recent holding in Wind Tower Trade 

Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014). I 

decline to join that aspect of the majority decision for the 

reasons provided below. I discuss each in turn.

1 “The two Commissioners who made affirmative 

determinations on the basis of material injury did not 

make a threat of material injury determination.” Siemens 

Energy, Inc. v. United States, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1322 

n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014). 

 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3

I. The CIT Correctly Applied the Standard of Review

Siemens contests the ITC’s decision to combine the 

vote for threat of material injury with the two votes for 

material injury to reach a final affirmative injury determination. I agree with the majority that the unambiguous terms of the statute support the ITC’s interpretation.2 

See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11) (2012) (explaining that, in the 

context of an evenly divided vote, “an affirmative vote on 

[material injury, threat of material injury, or material 

retardation of the establishment of an injury] shall be 

treated as a vote that the determination should be affirmative”).

When an affirmative Commission determination becomes subject to judicial review, sections

1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), (a)(2)(B)(i), and (b)(1)(B)(i) of Title 19 

of the United States Code state that such determination 

is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. 

Siemens argues that “the CIT misapplied the standard of 

review, treating affirmative-voting Commissioners in the 

minority as majorities.” Appellant’s Br. 42 (capitalization 

omitted). According to Siemens, this misapplication 

meant that the CIT unreasonably gave “deference to 

factual findings rejected by a clear majority of the Com2 The two step framework in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 

(1984) governs judicial review of the Commission’s interpretation of the trade remedies statutes. Nucor Corp. v. 

United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Considering the first step, “‘Congress has directly spoken 

to the precise question at issue’” in the present matter. 

Heino v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842). Thus, we need not 

address the second step of the Chevron analysis—whether 

the Commission’s “answer is based on a permissible 

construction of the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843.

 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/25/2015
4 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES

mission.” Id. at 47 (capitalization omitted). Siemens cites 

Wind Tower Trade Coalition in support of its argument. 

Id. at 46.

That record evidence contradicts the ITC’s conclusion 

does not mean that it misapplied the standard of review. 

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we 

must affirm reasonable determinations “even if it is 

possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the 

evidence.” Fleming v. Escort Inc., 774 F.3d 1371, 1375 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Siemens states that “[i]t is self-evident from the 

nature of the proceedings before the Commission why 

judicial deference should be a function of the common 

factual views rather than the nature of the Commissioner’s vote,” Appellant’s Br. 47, but that argument asks us 

to do what we cannot—reweigh facts already considered 

by the Commission. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

United States, 750 F.2d 927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Finally, Siemens misconstrues our holding in Wind 

Tower Trade Coalition. In that decision, this court applied Chevron to defer to Commerce’s permissible interpretation of two ambiguous statutory provisions—neither 

of which is at issue in this case—to determine when

antidumping and countervailing duties become effective. 

Wind Tower Trade Coal., 741 F.3d at 96–100 (interpreting 

19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a) and 1673e(a)). We affirmed Commerce’s interpretation that, under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a) 

and 1673e(a), it would not make sense in that particular 

context to apply § 1677(11) to combine votes of “material 

injury,” “threat of material injury,” and “material retardation.” Id. In that case, we did not address—as in this 

case—whether the Commission properly followed the 

unambiguous terms of § 1677(11) in issuing an affirmative final injury determination. Id.

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5

II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Material Injury and 

Threat of Material Injury Determinations

I agree with the majority that substantial evidence 

supports the ITC’s material injury and threat of material 

injury findings. With respect to the threat of material 

injury determination, Commissioner Pinkert’s “downward 

pricing trend” finding was not wholly based on import 

price, but also on the falling gap in delivered costs for

projects, suggesting increased competition between subject imports and the domestic like product and downward 

pressure on prices. Utility Scale Wind Towers from China 

and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-486 and 731-TA-1195-

1196, USITC Pub. 4372 at 34–35 (Feb. 2013) (Final). He 

did not find, as Siemens claims, that subject import prices 

were falling. Id.

Siemens also contends that Commissioner Pinkert erroneously cited projects that occurred outside the period 

of investigation (“POI”) and, thus, that those projects “had 

no bearing on the end-of-POI ‘trend’ he postulated.” 

Appellant’s Br. 28 (citation omitted). However, a Commissioner may infer a trend in the “imminent future” by 

“examining the ‘trend’ evidenced by the yearly data.” 

Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile 

AG v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 26 Ct. Int’l Trade 29, 38 

(2002) (citing Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. United States,

17 Ct. Int’l Trade 798, 807 (1993), aff’d, 26 F.3d 139 (Fed. 

Cir. 1994) (unpublished)). 

Finally, Siemens argues that higher-priced subject 

imports are inconsistent with adverse effects, Appellant’s 

Br. 27, but that argument does not consider the convergence of domestic and import prices. It was reasonable 

for Commissioner Pinkert to infer from converging prices 

that competition was increasing between domestic products and subject imports.

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/25/2015
6 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES

III. Argument Not Raised that the Majority Addresses

At the end of the opinion, the majority discusses our 

recent decision in Wind Tower Trade Coalition, which 

addressed when antidumping and countervailing duties 

become effective under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a) and 

1673e(a). See 741 F.3d at 96–100. I decline to join this 

portion of the decision.

The majority suggests that the Coalition contests that 

decision in this appeal. However, no portion of the Coalition’s response brief suggests that it does. See generally 

Coalition’s Br. Moreover, we could not review such a 

claim at this stage absent both (1) a properly filed crossappeal of the underlying CIT decision by the Coalition, see 

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 200 F.3d 

1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The general rule is that, 

without taking a cross-appeal, the prevailing party may 

present any argument that supports the judgment in its 

favor, except where the result of acceptance of its argument would be a reversal or modification of the judgment 

rather than an affirmance.” (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted)),3 and (2) a request from the Coalition to reconsider Wind Tower Trade Coalition en banc 

due to its precedential status, Deckers Corp. v. United 

3 For the Coalition to pursue such a claim, it would 

have had to name Commerce as a party to the suit, given 

that Commerce—not the ITC—determines when the 

duties become effective. Wind Tower Trade Coal., 741 

F.3d at 96–100. Commerce is not a party to this appeal, 

nor was it a party before the CIT in this action. See 

generally Siemens, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1315. In any event, 

the opportunity for further review of this issue by the 

Coalition expired when it declined to seek en banc review 

or file a petition for writ of certiorari, and res judicata 

would foreclose any attempt to relitigate the issue in this 

action.

 

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 17 Filed: 11/25/2015
SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. UNITED STATES 7

States, 752 F.3d 949, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that 

panels do not have the authority to overrule prior precedential panel decisions unless the en banc court or the 

Supreme Court overturns the prior decision).

Siemens briefly discusses our duty effective date holding in Wind Tower Trade Coalition in the background 

section of its opening brief. Appellant’s Br. 18–20. Even 

assuming that we construed that discussion to be an 

argument, our precedent would require us to consider it 

waived for at least two reasons. See In re Baxter Int’l, 

Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a 

party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief, but not in the argument section); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 

439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that when “a 

party includes no developed argumentation on a 

point . . . we treat the argument as waived” (quoting 

Anderson v. City of Boston, 375 F.3d 71, 91 (1st Cir. 

2004))). In any event, it is highly unlikely that Siemens 

would contest our holding in Wind Tower Trade Coalition, 

given that it had the effect of limiting Siemens’s antidumping and countervailing duty liability.

For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part.

Case: 14-1725 Document: 51-2 Page: 18 Filed: 11/25/2015