Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01289/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arcelormittal USA LLC
Appellee
Daido Steel Co., Ltd.
Not party
Hitachi Metals America LLC
Appellant
Hitachi Metals, Ltd.
Appellant
Nucor Corporation
Appellee
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HITACHI METALS, LTD., HITACHI METALS 

AMERICA LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

DAIDO STEEL CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES, ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, 

NUCOR CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2019-1289

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:17-cv-00140-MAB, 1:17-cv-00165-MAB, 

Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

Decided: February 7, 2020

______________________ 

DANIEL CANNISTRA, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented 

by ROBERT L. LAFRANKIE, PIERCE LEE. 

 BRIAN RUSSELL SOISET, Office of General Counsel, 

United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 02/07/2020
2 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

represented by ANDREA C. CASSON, DOMINIC L. BIANCHI. 

 BROOKE MICHELLE RINGEL, Kelley Drye & Warren, 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellees 

Arcelormittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation. Defendantappellee Arcelormittal USA LLC also represented by 

KATHLEEN CANNON, ROBERT ALAN LUBERDA, PAUL C.

ROSENTHAL. 

 ALAN H. PRICE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for 

defendant-appellee Nucor Corporation. Also represented 

by STEPHANIE MANAKER BELL, CHRISTOPHER B. WELD. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

In 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a final affirmative determination that a U.S. domestic 

industry was materially injured by virtue of imported steel 

goods sold at less than fair value. Hitachi appealed to the 

United States Court of International Trade, challenging

the Commission’s “domestic like product” determination. 

The Court of International Trade affirmed the Commission’s domestic like product determination. Hitachi appeals that judgment. Because we conclude that the 

Commission’s “domestic like product” determination is 

supported by substantial evidence and otherwise not contrary to law, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an antidumping duty investigation on imports of carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 02/07/2020
HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 3

(“CTL plate”).1 On April 8, 2016, three domestic producers 

of CTL plate (“petitioners”) filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”), alleging that 

imports of CTL plate from twelve countries, including Japan, were sold in the United States at less than fair value, 

and that an industry in the United States was materially 

injured as a result. Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length 

Plate, 81 Fed. Reg. 22116 (April 14, 2016) (Institution Decision). Both the Commission and Commerce initiated antidumping duty investigations. Id. Hitachi Metals, Ltd., 

and Hitachi Metals America, LLC (“Hitachi”) joined the 

Commission investigation, identifying itself as “a Japanese 

producer . . . and U.S. importer of carbon and alloy steel 

cut-to-length plate.” Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length 

Plate, Inv. No. 701-560 USITC Pub. 590311 (Sept. 12, 

2016).

I. “Domestic Like Product”

Commerce and the Commission play separate and distinct roles in the administration of antidumping duty investigations. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. Generally, Commerce 

investigates whether certain imported articles are sold in 

the United States at less than fair value, i.e., “dumped.” 

Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). The Commission investigates whether a U.S. “domestic industry” is materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of those imports. Id. at 1295.

Central to antidumping duty investigations, and central to this appeal, are Commerce’s and the Commission’s 

separate determinations as to the products relevant to

their respective inquiries. Commerce identifies the scope 

1 The investigations involved both antidumping duty 

and countervailing subsidies investigation. This appeal involves only the antidumping duty investigation. 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 02/07/2020
4 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

of imported articles subject to the investigation, referred to 

as the “subject merchandise.” Pesquera Mares Australes 

Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1374–75, 1375 n.2 

(Fed. Cir. 2001); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25). The Commission, 

on the other hand, determines the “domestic like product.” 

The “domestic like product” is a U.S. product “which is like, 

or . . . most similar in characteristics and uses” to the subject merchandise. Cleo Inc., 501 F.3d at 1295 (quoting 19 

U.S.C. § 1677(10)). The Commission’s definition of which 

domestic goods constitute “like products” determines the 

relevant domestic industry and, in turn, the scope of the 

Commission’s injury analysis. Id. 

By statute, the Commission’s “domestic like product” 

analysis begins with a review of the “articles subject to investigation,” i.e., the subject merchandise as determined by 

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10) (defining “domestic like 

product” as a “product which is like, or in the absence of 

like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation” (emphasis added)). The 

Commission then conducts a six-factor inquiry that evaluates whether the subject merchandise corresponds with a 

single domestic like product or multiple domestic like products. Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295. Specifically, the Commission 

compares the imported articles and domestic products by 

considering: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) channels of distribution; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer 

and producer perceptions; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and 

where appropriate (6) pricing. Id.; Timken Co. v. United 

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). The 

Commission may determine that the subject merchandise 

identified by Commerce encompasses one or more domestic 

like products. Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295. 

II. The Commission’s Investigation

In May 2016, the Commission published its preliminary determination which included a preliminary like 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 4 Filed: 02/07/2020
HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 5

product determination. Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate, 81 Fed. Reg. 33705–06 (May 27, 2016) (Preliminary Determination); J.A. 121–136. The Commission 

reviewed Commerce’s subject merchandise determination

and then performed the six-factor analysis based on the evidentiary record existing at that time. J.A. 121–133. The 

Commission concluded that the U.S. domestic industry 

consists of “a single domestic like product consisting of all 

CTL plate coextensive with the scope of these investigations.” J.A. 130 (emphasis added). Specifically, the Commission defined the domestic like product as: 

Certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged 

flat plate products not in coils, whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other 

non-metallic substances. Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length 

from coils and plate that is rolled or forged into a 

discrete length. The products covered include (1) 

Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products 

rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 

width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 

mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, 

which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products 

of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice 

the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether 

or not with patterns in relief. The covered products 

described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either 

rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where 

such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling,’’ (e.g., products 

which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

J.A. 122–23. The Commission also incorporated certain 

limitations adopted in Commerce’s subject merchandise

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 5 Filed: 02/07/2020
6 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

determination, such as limitations related to width and 

thickness, iron and carbon content, and third country processing. Id. In addition, the Commission incorporated 

Commerce’s seven express exclusions, which included: 

“products clad, plated, or coated in metal,” “military grade 

armor plate,” “stainless steel plate,” and “[a]lloy forged and 

rolled CTL plate.” J.A. 123–127. None of the limitations 

or exclusions related to tool steel. 

After the preliminary determination, the Commission 

issued questionnaires to relevant parties, including domestic producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers 

in the subject countries. See 19 CFR § 207.20(b). Before 

issuing the questionnaires, the Commission circulated 

drafts to the parties for comment. Id. Three importers, 

including Hitachi, submitted comments, asking the Commission to collect separate data for “tool steel” so that the 

Commission could consider whether tool steel is a separate 

domestic like product. The Commission granted the request and issued a supplemental questionnaire seeking

tool steel data from domestic producers. Four domestic 

producers responded with information. The Commission 

also contacted domestic producers who did not respond to 

the questionnaire. The Commission also collected additional data via telephone and email from several of those 

producers. 

After receiving additional briefing and conducting the 

public hearing, the Commission undertook another domestic like product analysis in view of the full record. The 

Commission “examined closely whether the record support[ed] finding a clear dividing line between tool steel and 

high speed steel on the one hand, and other CTL plate products on the other.” J.A. 2118; see also J.A. 2111–2119. After noting that the evidence was “mixed,” the Commission 

found no clear dividing lines between tool steel and other

CTL plate products and concluded that defining tool steel 

as a separate domestic like product was “not warranted.” 

Id. As a result, the Commission reaffirmed its preliminary 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 6 Filed: 02/07/2020
HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 7

determination of a single domestic like product coextensive 

with Commerce’s subject merchandise determination. Id.

III. Court of International Trade

Hitachi appealed the Commission’s final determination to the Court of International Trade.2 Hitachi argued 

that the Commission’s like product determination was legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. 

The Court of International Trade rejected Hitachi’s arguments and affirmed the Commission’s determination. 

Hitachi timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

This court conducts de novo review of appeals from the 

Court of International Trade that involve a Commission 

like product determination. In doing so, we apply the same 

standard of review applied by the Court of International 

Trade: we ask whether the Commission’s like product 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), 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i); Nippon Steel Corp. 

v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, “we 

must affirm a Commission determination if it is reasonable 

and supported by the record as a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commission’s conclusion.” Altx, 

Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). While a party 

“may disagree with the conclusions drawn by the Commission and offer reasonable, alternate explanations . . . , it is 

2 Daido Steel Co., Ltd. joined Hitachi in appealing 

the Commission’s final determination to the Court of International Trade. For purposes of this opinion, we refer to 

both parties as “Hitachi.”

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 7 Filed: 02/07/2020
8 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

not the role of this court to refind the facts or interpose 

[our] own determinations.” Id. at 1123–24 (internal quotations omitted). 

Hitachi raises essentially the same three arguments 

that it raised to the Court of International Trade. Hitachi 

contends that the Commission’s like product determination

was erroneous because: (i) the Commission unlawfully presumed that the domestic like product was coextensive with 

Commerce’s subject merchandise determination; (ii) the 

Commission’s inclusion of tool steel unlawfully ignored a 

35-year established agency practice; and (iii) the Commission’s inclusion of tool steel was not supported by substantial evidence. We address each argument in turn.

First, Hitachi contends that the Commission’s like 

product analysis was legally erroneous because the Commission “employed a presumption that the domestic like 

product is coextensive with the scope” of investigation. Appellant Br. 21–24; Oral Arg. at 1:30–7:15. Hitachi explains 

that Congress separately defined “domestic like product” 

and “subject merchandise” in 19 U.S.C. § 1677, and that 

the Commission failed to give those terms their separate 

meanings. Appellant Br. 17–18. Hitachi further contends 

that the Commission’s use of an “unlawful presumption” is 

evidenced by its “arbitrary” inclusion of tool steel and exclusion of “very similar” products like stainless steel. Appellant Br. at 24, 41 n.18. Hitachi asserts that the subject 

merchandise is “irrelevant” to the Commission’s like product determination. Appellant Br. 22 (“whether a product 

falls in or out of the scope is irrelevant when determining 

whether it constitute[s] a separate like product”). We disagree. 

Commerce’s subject merchandise determination is not

“irrelevant” to the Commission’s like product determination. Just the opposite: the subject merchandise determination is “necessarily the starting point of the 

Commission’s like product analysis.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 8 Filed: 02/07/2020
HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 9

1298 n.1 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10)). The statute requires the Commission to consider Commerce’s subject 

merchandise determination in reaching its own like product determination. To do otherwise risks creating two disconnected agency investigations. 

Hitachi cites cases holding that the Commission’s like 

product determination must be “separate and distinct” 

from Commerce’s subject merchandise determination. Appellant Br. 19–20 (citing Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. Of Am., 85 F.3d 1561, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996);

Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 

2d 1298, 1304 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000)). Those cases do not 

support Hitachi’s arguments. There is no dispute that the 

Commission’s like product determination must be separate 

and distinct from Commerce’s subject merchandise determination. See Hosiden, 85 F.3d at 1568 (“Commerce’s designation of the class or kind of merchandise sold at [less 

than fair value] does not control the Commission’s definition of the industry injured in its sales of like products.”). 

Hitachi cites no authority that precludes the Commission 

from determining that the domestic like product and the 

subject merchandise are coextensive. See 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(10) (defining domestic like product as the product 

“most like . . . the article subject to investigation” (emphasis added)). 

We are also unpersuaded by Hitachi’s argument that 

the Commission was required to compare tool steel to products outside of Commerce’s subject merchandise determination. See Appellant Br. 24, 41 n.18. The statute does not 

require such a broad analysis. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). To 

the contrary, it instructs the Commission to confine its like 

product determination to a comparison between domestic 

products and “the article subject to an investigation.” See 

id. Hitachi provides no authority to the contrary. 

In Cleo, we rejected the argument that “the Commission allowed Commerce’s finding to shape its like product 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 9 Filed: 02/07/2020
10 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

determination.” 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1. We noted that the 

Commission had expressly recognized the “settled rule that 

Commerce’s [subject merchandise] finding does not control 

the Commission’s [like product] determination.” Id. In the 

present case, the Commission expressly articulated the 

same rule: 

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s 

determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair 

value, the Commission determines what domestic 

product is like the imported articles Commerce has 

identified. . . . Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s [scope] finding does not control the Commission’s [like product] determination]”). 

J.A. 2088–2089, 2089 n.12 (brackets in original). Here, as 

in Cleo, “we do not perceive that the Commission’s like 

product analysis was biased towards finding . . . a single 

like product in order to conform its finding with the scope 

of Commerce’s [determination].” See Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 

n.1. 

Second, Hitachi argues that the Commission’s like 

product analysis was legally erroneous because it disregarded a 35-year “established practice” of “treating tool 

steel as separate and distinct from all other steel.” Appellant Br. 25–28. Hitachi explains that the Commission 

failed to either “conform itself to its prior decisions or explain the reasons for departing from” its long-established 

agency practice. Appellant Br. 30. We disagree. 

The cases Hitachi cites involve proceedings brought 

under different statutory provisions, different products, 

and different periods of investigation. See J.A. 19–29. Hitachi fails to cite a single antidumping investigation that 

involved the same subject merchandise as this case and 

where tool steel was excluded from the Commission’s definition of domestic like product. See id. As we have previously explained, each antidumping duty investigation “is 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 10 Filed: 02/07/2020
HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 11

sui generis, involving a unique combination and interaction 

of many economic variables.” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 

414 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2005). That the Commission 

reached different outcomes in cases with different circumstances “do[es] not indicate that the Commission either 

committed legal error in the methodology it used in this 

case or departed from the mode of analysis it regularly employs.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1299. 

Third, Hitachi argues that the Commission’s like product analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. Hitachi does not contest any specific aspect of the 

Commission’s factual findings. Instead, Hitachi faults the 

Commission for having “failed to fully collect” the information relevant to its like product analysis, and that the 

Commission “disregarded more than 90 percent of [the] relevant industry.” Appellant Br. 44–45, 50. Hitachi argues 

that the Commission’s failure to collect data led to an infirm record and renders the like product determination unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. 

The Commission satisfied its obligation to conduct “investigative activities” under 19 CFR § 207.20(b). In response to the supplemental questionnaires it issued at 

Hitachi’s request, the Commission received data from four

domestic tool steel producers. The Commission also sought 

out non-responding manufacturers via telephone and 

email, and successfully collected data from several of those 

parties. Contrary to Hitachi’s argument that the Commission “disregarded” information from tool steel producers, 

the record shows that several entities Hitachi named as 

tool steel producers reported that they do not produce tool 

steel. Based on the administrative record, we conclude 

that the Commission’s like product investigation and evidence collection was not unreasonable. As a result, the 

Commission’s like product conclusions are supported by 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co.

of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 11 Filed: 02/07/2020
12 HITACHI METALS, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

We have considered Hitachi’s other arguments and 

find them unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

Finding no error in the Commission’s like product determination, we affirm the judgment of the Court of International Trade. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 19-1289 Document: 57 Page: 12 Filed: 02/07/2020