NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 07/23/2020
2 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES

______________________

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, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, BRIAN RUSSELL SOISET. 

 JOHN M. HERRMANN, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, 

Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis 

Corporation, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also represented 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 Commission’s determination that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not 

a separate domestic like product from other gauges of aluminum foil. Because substantial evidence supports the 

Commission’s decision, we affirm.

Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3

I

In 2017, domestic producers of aluminum foil filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding imports 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 exceeding 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, electrical coils for transformers, capacitors for radios and televisions, 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 subsidized (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 industry] 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 quotation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting 

marks omitted).

Here, in the preliminary phase of its injury investigations, the Commission considered the correct definition of 

the domestic like product, and whether there were clear dividing lines among the domestically produced products corresponding to the in-scope imported articles. Certain 

Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2020
4 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES

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 domestic like product. Id.

The Commission conducted its six-factor domestic like 

product analysis, considering: (1) physical characteristics 

and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common 

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production 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 weighing those factors, the Commission disregards minor differences 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 dividing lines between the varieties and gauges of aluminum 

foil identified by the parties, including ultra-thin aluminum foil, and therefore preliminarily found “a single domestic 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 Commission’s Preliminary Views). 

During the final phase of its investigation, ProAmpac

disputed the Commission’s preliminary determination. 

ProAmpac highlighted why it believed ultra-thin aluminum 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: 4 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5

Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1311 (citing the Commission’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 under 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 Commission’s determination if it is supported by the record as 

a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commission’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 arguments do not show a lack of substantial evidence. 

1 Valeo North America, Inc. and MAHLE Behr Troy, 

Inc. also challenged the Commission’s determination related to a different type of aluminum product. These parties 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: 5 Filed: 07/23/2020
6 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES

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 ultra-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, ProAmpac 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 Commission’s decision. We therefore affirm. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 07/23/2020