Opinion ID: 2796396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: indicating industry support

Text: Congress enacted the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 1 (“CDSOA” or the “Byrd Amendment”) to 1 See Pub.L. No. 106–387, §§ 1001–1003, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–72 to –75 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1675c GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US 3 ameliorate the injurious effects of dumping and illegal subsidies by distributing portions of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to U.S. producers of the affected industry. See Pub. L. No. 106-387, § 1002. To be sure, Congress intended that the remedial effect of CDSOA distributions would be distinct from the remedial trade relief afforded under U.S. trade laws. 2 The former provides company-specific relief by assisting U.S. producers affected by dumping to rebuild, while the latter provides relief to the affected industry as a whole by raising the price of imports found to have been dumped. Specifically, the CDSOA provides that “[d]uties assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an antidumping duty order, or a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 shall be distributed on an annual basis under this section to the affected domestic producers for qualifying expenditures.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a). The statute is clear on its face that to receive distributions, a producer must first be an “affected domestic producer” and must certify that it desires to receive distributions, that it has not previously requested distributions for the qualifying expenditures it now seeks, and that it is eligible to receive distributions as an “affected domestic producer.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(d)(2). This case, like its predecessors, focuses on the interpretation of “affected domestic producer” (ADP). The precise question on appeal is whether Giorgio has established a plausible claim that it is an ADP under the CDSOA (2000)), repealed by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109–171, § 7601, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (Feb. 8, 2006) (effective Oct. 1, 2007). 2 The CDSOA addresses antidumping and counter- vailing investigations. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673. For the most part, this opinion refers to both by its reference to “antidumping.” 4 GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US To qualify as an ADP, a producer must have been a “petitioner or interested party in support of the petition.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(b)(1)(A). The CDSOA directs the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) to forward to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) a list of ADPs. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(d)(1). Customs then distributes the collected antidumping duties to listed ADPs who have provided the requisite certifications. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(d)(3). For non-petitioners to be on this list, the CDSOA requires that the producer be an interested party and “indicate support of the petition” by letter or, as is relevant here, “through questionnaire response.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(d)(1). The generality of this provision is notable; Congress only required that an interested party “indicate” support. 3 During an antidumping investigation, both the ITC and the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) send questionnaires to domestic producers at the preliminary and final stages of their respective investigations. The CDSOA does not specify which agency’s questionnaire responses must include the indication of support. Nor does it specify whether the questionnaire is the preliminary questionnaire or the final questionnaire. Most important, the CDSOA does not specify how a producer must indicate support—it only requires that the producer “indicate” support through the questionnaire response. 4 3 An interested party is, for the purposes of this appeal, a U.S. producer of the like product subject to the antidumping investigation. 19 U.S.C. §1677c. There is no dispute that Giorgio is an “interested party.” 4 “Indicate” means to “point out,” “show indirectly,” or “state briefly.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 386 (2004). GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US 5 For decades, the ITC’s questionnaires have contained a petition support question that asks “Do you support or oppose the petition? Please explain.” See J.A. 152, 189 (Giorgio’s ITC questionnaire responses). The questionnaire provides boxes next to “Support,” “Oppose,” or “Take no position,” as well as three lines where a producer can provide statement(s). To provide an example, I set out below the petition support question from Giorgio’s response to the preliminary questionnaire. 5 In passing the CDSOA, Congress did not refer to the ITC questionnaire, much less the ITC support boxes. Nor did Congress provide any guidance, for example, as to what happens if a U.S. producer checks the take no position box and then writes “please issue an antidumping order.” This is important because the majority opinion focuses on whether a box was checked or not. It is clear, however, that Congress could not have intended that the petition support requirement would hinge one way or another on the boxes. The ITC has used generally the same questionnaires at least as far back as the 1980s, well before the passage of the CDSOA in 2000. SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337, 1357– 58 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Stated differently, the support boxes 5 Giorgio’s answer to the petition support question in the final questionnaire was identical. J.A. 189. Giorgio did not check any of the boxes. 6 GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US existed over 15 years before the passage of the CDSOA. The boxes were not created for or by the CDSOA, nor did Congress designate the boxes as the place for indication of support of a petition. Indeed, the boxes are but a small, insignificant part of what is otherwise a questionnaire that calls for highly technical, complex, company-specific data that is often business proprietary information, as well as general industry, publically-available trade data and private market research data. On the other hand, the boxes alone provide no mean- ingful data or measurement towards a finding of material injury, the goal of any worthy antidumping petition. Had Congress wanted to make the ITC petition support question determinative of support for CDSOA purposes, it would have explicitly done so. But it did not. There is no indication in the statute or the legislative history that Congress intended that checking a box would determine whether one was an ADP. It is unjust to penalize a U.S. producer like Giorgio who submitted its questionnaire response two years before the CDSOA was enacted and had no clue that its answer to that one question would cost it CDSOA distributions. 6 Congress could not have intended such a result. 7 Yet, that is the result mandated by the majority. 6 In a trade case, there are a number of factors that U.S. producers consider as to whether they should publically or privately express support for a dumping petition. Thus, while a producer can lend economic and evidentiary support for the petition, it may choose, for commercial purposes having nothing to do with its support, not to publically support the petition out of fear of losing U.S., foreign, or downstream customers. See e.g., Oral Argument at 5:20–6:10. Stated differently, the answer to the ITC support question may be based entirely on business GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US 7