Opinion ID: 3066522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: As the agency charged with the administration of § 1337, the Commission is entitled to appropriate deference to its interpretation of the statute. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 227 (2001); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); Enercon GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Under Chevron, we must first look to “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” 467 U.S. at 842. As the Supreme Court explained, “If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.” Id. at 843 n.9. However, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. In the latter case, this court will “uphold the [Commission’s] interpretation of [19 U.S.C. § 1337] if it is reasonable in light of the language, policies and legislative history of the statute.” Enercon, 151 F.3d at 1381; see also San Huan New Materials High Tech, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Enercon, 151 F.3d at 1381).