N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHR

TROY INC., MAHLE BEH R USA INC., MAHLE BEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR

CHARLESTON INC., MAH LE BEHR MANUFACTURING MANAGE MENT, INC., MAHLE MANUFACTURING MANAGE MENT, INC., Plaintiffs

PROAMPAC INTERMEDIAT E, INC., AMPAC HOLDINGS, LLC, JEN

- C OAT, INC., DBA PROLAMINA, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, ALUMI NUM ASSOCIATION TR ADE ENFORCEMENT WORK ING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBE RS, JW ALUMINUM COMPANY, NOVELIS COR PORATION, REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LL C, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2020

- 1136

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Intern ational Trade in No s . 1:18

- cv

- 00087

- MAB, 1:18

- cv

- 00105

- MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2020VALEO NORTH AMERICA , INC

. v. UNITED STATES 2

______________________
Decided: July 23, 2020

______________________
M ARK L UDWIKOWSKI , Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by W ILLIAM C. S JOBERG , C OURTNEY G AYLE T AYLOR ; R OBERT K EVIN W ILLIAMS , Chicago, IL.

A NDREA C. C ASSON , Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee United States. Also represented by D OMINIC L. B IANCHI , B RIAN R USSELL S OISET

.

J OHN M. H ERRMANN , Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants

- appellees Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Cor poration, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also represented by K ATHLEEN C ANNON , G RACE W HANG K IM , J OSHUA M OREY , P AUL C. R OSENTHAL

.

______________________
Before O’M ALLEY , B RYSON , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. H UGHES , 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 U nited States International Trade Commission’s determ ination 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: 07/23/2020VALEO 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, 13 08

– 09 (Ct. Int ’ l Trade 2019)

. The petitions covered alumin um foil having a thickness of 0.2 m illi m eters 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
construct ion 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 importsinto 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 indust ry 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 ofitems 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. Su pp. 3d
at 1319 (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(i), 1671(a)) ( internal quotation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting marks omitted).
Here, i n the preliminary phase of its injury investigations, the Commission considered the correct definition of
t he 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: 07/23/2020VALEO NORTH AMERICA , INC

. v. UNITED STATES 4

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 characteristicsand uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common manufacturing facilities, pr oduction 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 we ighing 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, t he 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. ” V aleo N. Am., Inc. , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309 (quoting the Commission’s P reliminary V iews)

. During the final phase of its investigation, ProAmpac d isputed 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: 07/23/2020VALEO 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). Underthe substantial evidence standard, we will affirm the Commission’s determination if it is supported by the record asa whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commission’s conclusion. Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States

, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562

– 6 4 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ProAmpac argues that substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s domestic like product analys is based on four of the six factors : physical characteristics and uses; interchangeability; common manufacturing facilities, produ ction 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 con fidential opinion, which is not cited herein. Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 07/23/2020VALEO NORTH AMERICA , INC

. v. UNITED STATES 6

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. T he 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 consid er . Instead, ProAmpac asks this c ourt 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

co urt 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 de cision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision. We therefore affirm.

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